Search

Purpose and Methods: To compare the effects of a set of 12--30 min, maximal effort, constant load cycle bouts (HICT) to 12 short work: shorter rest (10 s: 5 s) interval sessions (INT) of similar duration and effort, performed on alternate days over 4 weeks, on performance and V?O[subscript 2] l.min[superscript -1]. INT sessions consisted of repeated cycles of 10 s work followed by 5 s of recovery for 30 min. Fourteen male athletes (83 kg ± 6, 24year ± 2) were randomly assigned to HICT (n=7) or INT (n=7) training. Pre- and post-power output (PO), V?O[subscript 2] and V?O[subscript 2peak], during 60s, 3 min, and ramp (RAMP) tests were collected. Results: Between group comparisons showed increased mean PO, pre- to post-INT training (p=0.026) over the last min of the 3-min test whereas PO post-HICT training declined. INT showed greater training effects on the 60 s test than HCIT (INT 506 ± 45 to 535 ± 55 W; p=0.002, Cd=0.57; HCIT 513 ± 78 to 548 ± 83 W; p=0.02, Cd=27). RAMP peak PO and V?O[subscript 2peak] increased within both groups (INT 341 ± 63 to 370 ± 48 W, p=0.002, Cd=0.52; HICT 332 ± 45 to 353 ± 44 W, p=0.006, Cd=0.53; 3.73 ± 0.68 to 4.06 ± 0.63 L·min[superscript -1], p=0.001, Cd=0.50; 3.75 ± 0.62 to 4.09 ± 0.52 L·min[superscript -1], p=0.002, Cd=0.59). Conclusion(s): These results show that utilizing this novel short work: shorter rest (10 s: 5 s) interval training paradigm will elicit better performances in moderate duration performances compared to continuous training of the same duration, effort, and frequency.