Craig Twist1, Richard Bott2, Jamie Highton2. 1. Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Chester, Parkgate Road, Chester, CH1 4BJ, England, UK. c.twist@chester.ac.uk. 2. Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Chester, Parkgate Road, Chester, CH1 4BJ, England, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The acute physiological, perceptual and neuromuscular responses to volume-matched running and cycling high intensity interval training (HIIT) were studied in team sport athletes. METHODS: In a randomized cross-over design, 11 male team sport players completed 3 × 6 min (with 5 min between sets) repeated efforts of 15 s exercising at 120% speed (s[Formula: see text]O2max) or power (p[Formula: see text]O2max) at [Formula: see text]O2max followed by 15 s passive recovery on a treadmill or cycle ergometer, respectively. RESULTS: Absolute mean [Formula: see text]O2 (ES [95% CI] = 1.46 [0.47-2.34], p < 0.001) and heart rate (ES [95% CI] = 1.53 [0.53-2.41], p = 0.001) were higher in running than cycling HIIT. Total time at > 90% [Formula: see text]O2max during the HIIT was higher for running compared to cycling (ES [95% CI] = 1.21 [0.26-2.07], p = 0.015). Overall differential RPE (dRPE) (ES [95% CI] = 0.55 [- 0.32-1.38], p = 0.094) and legs dRPE (ES [95% CI] = - 0.65 [- 1.48-0.23], p = 0.111) were similar, whereas breathing dRPE (ES [95% CI] = 1.01 [0.08-1.85], p = 0.012) was higher for running. Maximal isometric knee extension force was unchanged after running (ES [95% CI] = - 0.04 [- 0.80-0.8], p = 0.726) compared to a moderate reduction after cycling (ES [95% CI] = - 1.17 [- 2.02-0.22], p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Cycling HIIT in team sport athletes is unlikely to meet the requirements for improving run-specific metabolic adaptation but might offer a greater lower limb neuromuscular load.
PURPOSE: The acute physiological, perceptual and neuromuscular responses to volume-matched running and cycling high intensity interval training (HIIT) were studied in team sport athletes. METHODS: In a randomized cross-over design, 11 male team sport players completed 3 × 6 min (with 5 min between sets) repeated efforts of 15 s exercising at 120% speed (s[Formula: see text]O2max) or power (p[Formula: see text]O2max) at [Formula: see text]O2max followed by 15 s passive recovery on a treadmill or cycle ergometer, respectively. RESULTS: Absolute mean [Formula: see text]O2 (ES [95% CI] = 1.46 [0.47-2.34], p < 0.001) and heart rate (ES [95% CI] = 1.53 [0.53-2.41], p = 0.001) were higher in running than cycling HIIT. Total time at > 90% [Formula: see text]O2max during the HIIT was higher for running compared to cycling (ES [95% CI] = 1.21 [0.26-2.07], p = 0.015). Overall differential RPE (dRPE) (ES [95% CI] = 0.55 [- 0.32-1.38], p = 0.094) and legs dRPE (ES [95% CI] = - 0.65 [- 1.48-0.23], p = 0.111) were similar, whereas breathing dRPE (ES [95% CI] = 1.01 [0.08-1.85], p = 0.012) was higher for running. Maximal isometric knee extension force was unchanged after running (ES [95% CI] = - 0.04 [- 0.80-0.8], p = 0.726) compared to a moderate reduction after cycling (ES [95% CI] = - 1.17 [- 2.02-0.22], p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Cycling HIIT in team sport athletes is unlikely to meet the requirements for improving run-specific metabolic adaptation but might offer a greater lower limb neuromuscular load.
Authors: Adam Beard; John Ashby; Ryan Chambers; Franck Brocherie; Grégoire P Millet Journal: Int J Sports Physiol Perform Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.010
Authors: Steve R Roof; Yukie Ueyama; Reza Mazhari; Robert L Hamlin; J Craig Hartman; Mark T Ziolo; John E Reardon; Carlos L Del Rio Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 4.566