Intra-individual physiological response of recreational runners to different training mesocycles: a randomized cross-ove
- PDF / 831,519 Bytes
- 9 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 93 Downloads / 149 Views
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Intra‑individual physiological response of recreational runners to different training mesocycles: a randomized cross‑over study Peter Düking1 · Hans‑Christer Holmberg2,3 · Philipp Kunz1 · Robert Leppich4 · Billy Sperlich1 Received: 9 May 2020 / Accepted: 14 August 2020 © The Author(s) 2020
Abstract Purpose Pronounced differences in individual physiological adaptation may occur following various training mesocycles in runners. Here we aimed to assess the individual changes in performance and physiological adaptation of recreational runners performing mesocycles with different intensity, duration and frequency. ̇ 2peak ) and Methods Employing a randomized cross-over design, the intra-individual physiological responses [i.e., peak ( VO ̇ submaximal ( VO2submax ) oxygen uptake, velocity at lactate thresholds (V2, V4)] and performance (time-to-exhaustion (TTE)) of 13 recreational runners who performed three 3-week sessions of high-intensity interval training (HIIT), high-volume lowintensity training (HVLIT) or more but shorter sessions of HVLIT (high-frequency training; HFT) were assessed. ̇ 2peak improved to the same ̇ 2submax , V2, V4 and TTE were not altered by HIIT, HVLIT or HFT (p > 0.05). VO Results VO extent following HVLIT (p = 0.045) and HFT (p = 0.02). The number of moderately negative responders was higher following HIIT (15.4%); and HFT (15.4%) than HVLIT (7.6%). The number of very positive responders was higher following HVLIT (38.5%) than HFT (23%) or HIIT (7.7%). 46% of the runners responded positively to two mesocycles, while 23% did not respond to any. ̇ 2submax , V2, V4 or TTE, while HVLIT and HFT improved Conclusion On a group level, none of the interventions altered VO ̇VO2peak . The mean adaptation index indicated similar numbers of positive, negative and non-responders to HIIT, HVLIT and HFT, but more very positive responders to HVLIT than HFT or HIIT. 46% responded positively to two mesocycles, while 23% did not respond to any. These findings indicate that the magnitude of responses to HIIT, HVLIT and HFT is highly individual and no pattern was apparent. Keyword Cardiorespiratory fitness · Endurance · Personalized training Abbreviations ANOVA Analysis of variance HR Heart rate Communicated by Philip D Chilibeck. * Peter Düking Peter.dueking@uni‑wuerzburg.de 1
Integrative and Experimental Exercise Science and Training, Department of Sport Science, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
Swedish Winter Sports Research Centre, Department of Health Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden
2
3
Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Biomedicum C5, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
4
Chair of Software Engineering, Department of Computer Science, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
HIIT High-intensity interval training HFT High frequency training HVLIT High-volume low-intensity training MET Metabolic equivalent of task ̇ 2 Oxygen uptake VO V2 Running velocity at blood lactate concentrations of 2 mmol·l−1 V4 Running ve
Data Loading...
