目的:我们比较了根据无氧速度储备(ASR)个性化的超最大高强度间歇训练(HIIT)的适应性反应,30-15间歇性体能测试(VIFT),以及与最大摄氧量(MAS)相关的速度,以确定哪种方法可以促进具有不同轮廓的运动员的更多相同适应。
方法:将30名国家级篮球运动员(年龄=28.4[5]y;体重=88.9[6.3]kg;身高=190[4.8]cm)随机分配到3个训练组,分别进行2组4、6、8、6、8和10分钟的跑步(从第一周到第六周,分别),包括以Δ%20ASR(MAS+0.2×ASR)运行15秒,95%VIFT,和120%的MAS,努力之间有15秒的恢复,集合之间有3分钟的缓解。
结果:所有3个间隔干预措施均显着(P<.05)提高了最大摄氧量(V•O2max),氧脉冲(V-O2/HR),第一和第二通气阈值(VT1和VT2),心输出量(Q•max),每搏输出量,峰值和平均功率输出,睾酮水平,以及训练期后睾酮与皮质醇的比率。响应于HIITASR,观察到测量变量的百分比变化的个体间变异性(变异系数)的不同值,HIITVIFT,和HIITMAS为V•O2max(8.7%,18.8%,34.6%,分别),V•O2/HR(9.5%,15.0%,28.6%),VT1(9.6%,19.6%,34.6%),VT2(21.8%,32.4%,56.7%),Q•max(8.2%,16.9%,28.8%),每搏输出量(7.9%,15.2%,23.5%),峰值功率输出(20%,22%,37.3%),平均功率输出(21.1%,21.3%,32.5%),睾酮(52.9%,61.6%,59.9%),和睾酮与皮质醇的比率(55.1%,59.5%,57.8%)。
结论:在Δ%20ASR下进行的超最大HIIT导致比使用VIFT或MAS规定的HIIT干预更均匀的生理适应。虽然荷尔蒙的变化不遵循这种方法,所有的方法都会产生合成代谢作用.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the adaptive responses to supramaximal high-intensity interval training (HIIT) individualized according to anaerobic speed reserve (ASR), the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (VIFT), and velocity associated with maximum oxygen uptake (MAS) to determine which approach facilitates more identical adaptations across athletes with different profiles.
METHODS: Thirty national-level basketball players (age = 28.4 [5] y; body mass = 88.9 [6.3] kg; height = 190 [4.8] cm) were randomly assigned to 3 training groups performing 2 sets of 4, 6, 8, 6, 8, and 10-minute runs (from first to sixth week, respectively), consisting of 15-second running at Δ%20ASR (MAS + 0.2 × ASR), 95%VIFT, and 120%MAS, with 15 seconds recovery between efforts and a 3-minute relief between sets.
RESULTS: All 3 interval interventions significantly (P < .05) enhanced maximum oxygen uptake (V˙O2max), oxygen pulse (V˙O2/HR), first and second ventilatory threshold (VT1 and VT2), cardiac output (Q˙max), stroke volume, peak and average power output, testosterone levels, and testosterone-to-cortisol ratio following the training period. Different values of interindividual variability (coefficient of variation) for the percentage changes of the measured variables were observed in response to HIITASR, HIITvIFT, and HIITMAS for V˙O2max (8.7%, 18.8%, 34.6%, respectively), V˙O2/HR (9.5%, 15.0%, 28.6%), VT1 (9.6%, 19.6%, 34.6%), VT2 (21.8%, 32.4%, 56.7%), Q˙max (8.2%, 16.9%, 28.8%), stroke volume (7.9%, 15.2%, 23.5%), peak power output (20%, 22%, 37.3%), average power output (21.1%, 21.3%, 32.5%), testosterone (52.9%, 61.6%, 59.9%), and testosterone-to-cortisol ratio (55.1%, 59.5%, 57.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: Supramaximal HIIT performed at Δ%20ASR resulted in more uniform physiological adaptations than HIIT interventions prescribed using VIFT or MAS. Although hormonal changes do not follow this approach, all the approaches induced an anabolic effect.