Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effects of polarized running training adapted to the menstrual cycle (MC) phases versus polarized training adapted contrary to the MC on endurance performance and cardiovascular parameters.
METHODS: Thirty-three naturally menstruating, moderately trained females (age: 26 ± 4 years; BMI: 22.3 ± 3.2 kg/m2; V ˙ O2max/rel: 40.35 ± 4.61 ml/min/kg) were randomly assigned to a control (CON) and intervention (INT) group. Both groups participated in a load-matched eight-week running training intervention. In the INT, high-intensity sessions were aligned with the mid and late follicular phase, low-intensity sessions with the early and mid-luteal phase, and recovery with the late luteal and early follicular phase. In the CON, high-intensity sessions were matched to the late luteal and early follicular phase, and recovery to the mid and late follicular phase. Endurance performance and cardiovascular parameters were assessed at baseline and after the intervention.
RESULTS: Twenty-six females completed the intervention. A repeated measures ANOVA determined no time × group interaction effect for any parameter. A significant time effect was found for maximal oxygen uptake (F(1,12) = 18.753, p = 0.005, ηp2 = 0.630), the velocity at the ventilatory threshold one (F(1,12) = 10.704, p = 0.007, ηp2 = 0.493) and two (F(1,12) = 7.746, p = .018, ηp2 = .413).
CONCLUSIONS: The training intervention improved endurance performance in both groups, with no further benefit observed from the MC-adapted polarized training in a group-based analysis. Replications with an extended intervention period, a larger sample size, and a more reliable MC determination are warranted.
METHODS: Thirty-three naturally menstruating, moderately trained females (age: 26 ± 4 years; BMI: 22.3 ± 3.2 kg/m2; V ˙ O2max/rel: 40.35 ± 4.61 ml/min/kg) were randomly assigned to a control (CON) and intervention (INT) group. Both groups participated in a load-matched eight-week running training intervention. In the INT, high-intensity sessions were aligned with the mid and late follicular phase, low-intensity sessions with the early and mid-luteal phase, and recovery with the late luteal and early follicular phase. In the CON, high-intensity sessions were matched to the late luteal and early follicular phase, and recovery to the mid and late follicular phase. Endurance performance and cardiovascular parameters were assessed at baseline and after the intervention.
RESULTS: Twenty-six females completed the intervention. A repeated measures ANOVA determined no time × group interaction effect for any parameter. A significant time effect was found for maximal oxygen uptake (F(1,12) = 18.753, p = 0.005, ηp2 = 0.630), the velocity at the ventilatory threshold one (F(1,12) = 10.704, p = 0.007, ηp2 = 0.493) and two (F(1,12) = 7.746, p = .018, ηp2 = .413).
CONCLUSIONS: The training intervention improved endurance performance in both groups, with no further benefit observed from the MC-adapted polarized training in a group-based analysis. Replications with an extended intervention period, a larger sample size, and a more reliable MC determination are warranted.
摘要：
目的：本研究比较了适应月经周期（MC）阶段的极化跑步训练与适应与MC相反的极化训练对耐力表现和心血管参数的影响。
方法：三十三个自然月经，接受过中度训练的女性(年龄:26±4岁;BMI:22.3±3.2kg/m2;V•O2max/rel:40.35±4.61ml/min/kg)被随机分为对照组(CON)和干预组(INT).两组都参加了为期八周的负荷匹配跑步训练干预。在INT,高强度会话与卵泡中期和晚期对齐，黄体早期和中期的低强度会议，黄体晚期和卵泡早期恢复。在CON中,高强度会话与黄体晚期和卵泡早期相匹配，恢复到卵泡中期和晚期。在基线和干预后评估耐力表现和心血管参数。
结果：26名女性完成了干预。重复测量方差分析确定任何参数都没有时间×组交互作用。发现最大摄氧量具有显着的时间效应（F（1,12）=18.753，p=0.005，ηp2=0.630），通气阈值的速度1（F（1,12）=10.704，p=0.007，ηp2=0.493）和2（F（1,12）=7.746，p=.018，ηp2=.413）。
结论：训练干预改善了两组的耐力表现，在基于组的分析中，MC适应极化训练没有观察到进一步的益处。干预期延长的复制，更大的样本量，更可靠的MC测定是必要的。
方法：三十三个自然月经，接受过中度训练的女性(年龄:26±4岁;BMI:22.3±3.2kg/m2;V•O2max/rel:40.35±4.61ml/min/kg)被随机分为对照组(CON)和干预组(INT).两组都参加了为期八周的负荷匹配跑步训练干预。在INT,高强度会话与卵泡中期和晚期对齐，黄体早期和中期的低强度会议，黄体晚期和卵泡早期恢复。在CON中,高强度会话与黄体晚期和卵泡早期相匹配，恢复到卵泡中期和晚期。在基线和干预后评估耐力表现和心血管参数。
结果：26名女性完成了干预。重复测量方差分析确定任何参数都没有时间×组交互作用。发现最大摄氧量具有显着的时间效应（F（1,12）=18.753，p=0.005，ηp2=0.630），通气阈值的速度1（F（1,12）=10.704，p=0.007，ηp2=0.493）和2（F（1,12）=7.746，p=.018，ηp2=.413）。
结论：训练干预改善了两组的耐力表现，在基于组的分析中，MC适应极化训练没有观察到进一步的益处。干预期延长的复制，更大的样本量，更可靠的MC测定是必要的。
