3.8 Article

Aerobic high-intensity intervals improve VO2max more than moderate training

期刊

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 665-671

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/mss.0b013e3180304570

关键词

lactate threshold; aerobic power; 4 x 4-min intervals; 15/15 training; stroke volume; blood volume

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The present study compared the effects of aerobic endurance training at different intensities and with different methods matched for total work and frequency. Responses in maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), stroke volume of the heart (SV), blood volume, lactate threshold (LT), and running economy (C-R) were examined. Methods: Forty healthy. nonsmoking, moderately trained male subjects were randomly assigned to one of four groups: 1) long slow distance (70% maximal heart rate: HRmax) lactate threshold (85% HRmax); 3) 15/15 interval running (15 s of running at 90-95% HRmax followed by 15 s of active resting at 70% HRmax); and 4) 4 x 4 min of interval running (4 min of running at 90-95% HRmax followed by 3 min of active resting at 70% HRmax). All four training protocols resulted in similar total oxygen consumption and were performed 3 d(.)wk(-1) for 8 wk. Results: High-intensity aerobic interval training resulted in significantly increased VO2max compared with long slow distance and lactate-threshold training intensities (P < 0.01). The percentage increases for the 15/15 and 4 x 4 min groups were 5.5 and 7.2%. respectively, reflecting increases in VO2max from 60.5 to 64.4 mL(.)kg(-1.)min(-1) and 55.5 to 60.4 mL(.)kg(-1)-min(-1). SV increased significantly by approximately 10% after interval training (P < 0.05). Conclusions: High-aerobic intensity endurance interval training is significantly more effective than performing the same total work at either lactate threshold or at 70% HRmax, in improving VO2max. The changes in VO2max correspond with changes in SV, indicating a close link between the two.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据