4.6 Article

Physiological and performance effects of low- versus mixed-intensity rowing training

Journal

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
Volume 40, Issue 3, Pages 579-584

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/mss.0b013e31815ecc6a

Keywords

endurance training; blood lactate response; VO2; kinetics; rowing ergometer performance

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

INGHAM, S. A., H. CARTER, G. P. WHYTE, and J. H. DOUST. Physiological and Performance Effects of Low- versus Mixed-Intensity Rowing Training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 579-584, 2008. Purpose: To examine the impact of low-intensity and a mixture of low- and high-intensity training on physiological and performance responses in rowing. Methods: Eighteen experienced rowers undertook a 12-wk program of 100% <= lactate threshold (LT) training (LOW) or 70% training at <= LT and 30% at halfway (50%Delta) between the VO2 at LT and VO2peak (MIX). Responses were assessed before and after training by a progressive exercise test to exhaustion; multiple square-wave rest-to-exercise transitions of 6-min duration at 50%Delta; and a maximal 2000-m ergometer time trial. Results: Improvements (P < 0.001) in 2000-m ergometer performance and VO2peak occur-red independently of groups (P = 0.8 and 0.42, respectively). LOW improved the power at LT (23.5 +/- 12.2 vs 5.1 +/- 5.0 W, P = 0.013) and power at a [blood lactate] of 4 mM (32.3 +/- 6.9 vs 13.1 +/- 3.7 W, P = 0.03) compared with MIX. The time constant and gain of the primary component were unchanged with training, whereas the gain of the VO2 slow component was reduced with training, but independently of group. Conclusions: Both LOW and MIX training programs improved performance and VO2peak by the same magnitude, whereas LOW attenuated the blood lactate response to a given exercise intensity more so than MIX.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available