4.4 Article

Concomitant application of sprint and high-intensity interval training on maximal oxygen uptake and work output in well-trained cyclists

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 116, Issue 8, Pages 1495-1502

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-016-3405-z

Keywords

Interval training; Maximal oxygen uptake; Cycling

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Higher Education [NRSA300253]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we compared the effects of two different training modalities on maximal oxygen uptake and work output. Participants included 26 well-trained mountain bike cyclists were divided into two groups. The first group trained using a conventional endurance protocol at steady-state (moderate) intensity and variable-intensity (high-moderate-low) free of maximal efforts. The second group combined endurance training with a sprint and high-intensity interval training protocol, which, respectively, were based on 30 s maximal repetitions and 4 min high intensity repetitions. Training duration was 8 weeks. A graded exercise test was administered pre- and post-training. Work output, oxygen uptake, minute pulmonary ventilation, heart rate and stroke volume were determined during the test. While work output significantly increased post-training in both groups (P < 0.05), the interval training group showed a greater magnitude of change (from 284.4 +/- 91.9 to 314.2 +/- 95.1 kJ) than the endurance training group (from 271.8 +/- 73.3 to 283.4 +/- 72.3 kJ). Significant increases in maximal oxygen uptake (from 57.9 +/- 6.8 to 66.6 +/- 5.3 ml kg(-1) min(-1)), maximal pulmonary ventilation and stroke volume were observed only in the interval training group. An exercise protocol involving endurance and sprint and high-intensity interval training was found to induce positive effects on maximal oxygen uptake in a group of well-trained cyclists with several years athletic experience.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available