Limits...
Specific Intensity for Peaking: Is Race Pace the Best Option?

Munoz I, Seiler S, Alcocer A, Carr N, Esteve-Lanao J - Asian J Sports Med (2015)

Bottom Line: Both groups significantly improved their 10 km time (35 minutes 29 seconds ± 1 minutes 41 seconds vs 34 minutes 53 seconds ± 1 minutes 55 seconds, P < 0.01 for HIT; 35 minutes 27 seconds ± 1 minutes 40 seconds vs 34 minutes 53 seconds ± 1 minutes 18 seconds P < 0.01 for RP).In contrast, running economy decreased significantly after HIT (210 ± 6 ml.Kg(-1).km(-1) vs 218 ± 9, P < 0.05).Therefore, the physiological impact of HIT training seems to be positive for VO2max but negative for running economy.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Motricity and Sport Training Fundamentals, European University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

ABSTRACT

Background: The peaking period for endurance competition is characterized for a relative increase of the intensity of training, after a longer period of training relatively dominated by lower intensity and higher volume.

Objectives: The present study was designed to compare physiological and 10 km performance effects of high intensity training (HIT) versus race pace interval training (RP) during peaking for competition in well-trained runners.

Patients and methods: 13 athletes took part in the study, they were divided into two groups: HIT and RP. HIT performed short intervals at ~105% of the maximal aerobic velocity (MAV), while RP trained longer intervals at a speed of ~90% of the MAV (a speed approximating 10 km race pace). After 12 weeks of baseline training, the athletes trained for 6 weeks under one of the two peaking regimes. Subjects performed 10 km prior to and after the intervention period. The total load of training was matched between groups during the treatment phase. Subjects completed a graded treadmill running test until volitional exhaustion prior to each 10 km race. MAV was determined as the minimal velocity eliciting maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max).

Results: Both groups significantly improved their 10 km time (35 minutes 29 seconds ± 1 minutes 41 seconds vs 34 minutes 53 seconds ± 1 minutes 55 seconds, P < 0.01 for HIT; 35 minutes 27 seconds ± 1 minutes 40 seconds vs 34 minutes 53 seconds ± 1 minutes 18 seconds P < 0.01 for RP). VO2max increased after HIT (69 ± 3.6 vs 71.5 ± 4.2 ml.Kg(-1).min(-1), P < 0.05); while it didn't for RP (68.4 ± 6 vs 69.8 ± 3 ml.Kg(-1).min(-1), p>0.05). In contrast, running economy decreased significantly after HIT (210 ± 6 ml.Kg(-1).km(-1) vs 218 ± 9, P < 0.05).

Conclusions: A 6 week period of training at either 105% of MAV or 90% of MAV yielded similar performance gains in a 10km race performed at ~90% MAV. Therefore, the physiological impact of HIT training seems to be positive for VO2max but negative for running economy.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Training Load Progression for Both Groups (HIT-black, RP-white)
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4594142&req=5

fig21914: Training Load Progression for Both Groups (HIT-black, RP-white)

Mentions: According to estimates by Peronnet and Thibault (21) with the endurance index of the subjects (fractional utilization of VO2max and the running time expressed on a logarithmic scale), we calculated the endurance index in these athletes and estimated their time limit, ~ 32 minutes for RP training (90% of MAV in Test 1), and a time limit of ~ 3 - 4 minutes for HIT training pace (105% of MAV). Thus, a ~ 9:1 proportion of this theoretical time limit calculation was the rationale for weighing every minute of HIT intensity with 9 points versus 1 point per minute in RP. To calculate a session training load, we multiplied volume x intensity x density, where volume was total training in minutes (not including rest intervals), intensity was 9 points per minute in HIT and 1 point per minute in RP, and density was the work/rest interval time ratio. Table 2 and Figure 1 show detailed scheduling and load calculations session-to-session.


Specific Intensity for Peaking: Is Race Pace the Best Option?

Munoz I, Seiler S, Alcocer A, Carr N, Esteve-Lanao J - Asian J Sports Med (2015)

Training Load Progression for Both Groups (HIT-black, RP-white)
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4594142&req=5

fig21914: Training Load Progression for Both Groups (HIT-black, RP-white)
Mentions: According to estimates by Peronnet and Thibault (21) with the endurance index of the subjects (fractional utilization of VO2max and the running time expressed on a logarithmic scale), we calculated the endurance index in these athletes and estimated their time limit, ~ 32 minutes for RP training (90% of MAV in Test 1), and a time limit of ~ 3 - 4 minutes for HIT training pace (105% of MAV). Thus, a ~ 9:1 proportion of this theoretical time limit calculation was the rationale for weighing every minute of HIT intensity with 9 points versus 1 point per minute in RP. To calculate a session training load, we multiplied volume x intensity x density, where volume was total training in minutes (not including rest intervals), intensity was 9 points per minute in HIT and 1 point per minute in RP, and density was the work/rest interval time ratio. Table 2 and Figure 1 show detailed scheduling and load calculations session-to-session.

Bottom Line: Both groups significantly improved their 10 km time (35 minutes 29 seconds ± 1 minutes 41 seconds vs 34 minutes 53 seconds ± 1 minutes 55 seconds, P < 0.01 for HIT; 35 minutes 27 seconds ± 1 minutes 40 seconds vs 34 minutes 53 seconds ± 1 minutes 18 seconds P < 0.01 for RP).In contrast, running economy decreased significantly after HIT (210 ± 6 ml.Kg(-1).km(-1) vs 218 ± 9, P < 0.05).Therefore, the physiological impact of HIT training seems to be positive for VO2max but negative for running economy.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Motricity and Sport Training Fundamentals, European University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

ABSTRACT

Background: The peaking period for endurance competition is characterized for a relative increase of the intensity of training, after a longer period of training relatively dominated by lower intensity and higher volume.

Objectives: The present study was designed to compare physiological and 10 km performance effects of high intensity training (HIT) versus race pace interval training (RP) during peaking for competition in well-trained runners.

Patients and methods: 13 athletes took part in the study, they were divided into two groups: HIT and RP. HIT performed short intervals at ~105% of the maximal aerobic velocity (MAV), while RP trained longer intervals at a speed of ~90% of the MAV (a speed approximating 10 km race pace). After 12 weeks of baseline training, the athletes trained for 6 weeks under one of the two peaking regimes. Subjects performed 10 km prior to and after the intervention period. The total load of training was matched between groups during the treatment phase. Subjects completed a graded treadmill running test until volitional exhaustion prior to each 10 km race. MAV was determined as the minimal velocity eliciting maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max).

Results: Both groups significantly improved their 10 km time (35 minutes 29 seconds ± 1 minutes 41 seconds vs 34 minutes 53 seconds ± 1 minutes 55 seconds, P < 0.01 for HIT; 35 minutes 27 seconds ± 1 minutes 40 seconds vs 34 minutes 53 seconds ± 1 minutes 18 seconds P < 0.01 for RP). VO2max increased after HIT (69 ± 3.6 vs 71.5 ± 4.2 ml.Kg(-1).min(-1), P < 0.05); while it didn't for RP (68.4 ± 6 vs 69.8 ± 3 ml.Kg(-1).min(-1), p>0.05). In contrast, running economy decreased significantly after HIT (210 ± 6 ml.Kg(-1).km(-1) vs 218 ± 9, P < 0.05).

Conclusions: A 6 week period of training at either 105% of MAV or 90% of MAV yielded similar performance gains in a 10km race performed at ~90% MAV. Therefore, the physiological impact of HIT training seems to be positive for VO2max but negative for running economy.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus