■比较耐力运动员中等强度训练的一个长和两个短时间和强度匹配的训练之间的急性生理反应和感知的训练压力。
■十四名男性耐力运动员(VO2max:69.2±4.2mL·min-1·kg-1)进行了一次6×10分钟的间隔训练(SINGLE)和两次3×10分钟的间隔训练,并在两天内进行了6.5小时的中等强度训练恢复(DOUBLE),在实验室跑步时,使用平衡交叉试验。将两个训练日分为第一部分/会话(间隔阶段1-3)和第二部分/会话(间隔阶段4-6)。呼吸变量,心率(HR),血乳酸浓度(BLa),并在会话期间收集感知劳累(RPE)评级,而仰卧心率(HR)则在疗程结束后的60分钟恢复期内进行评估.在第二天的早晨评估了感知的训练压力(1-10)的度量。
■HR,BLA,与第一部分相比,第二部分的RPE增加(168±7vs.173±7bpm,2.60±0.75vs.3.01±0.81mmol·L-1,13.4±1.0vs.14.8±1.1点,分别,所有p<0.05)。与第一届DOUBLE相比,第二届HR和Bla下降(171±9vs.166±9bpm和2.72±0.96vs.分别为2.14±0.65mmol·L-1,两者p<0.05)。SinGLE在疗程后的恢复期显示出更高的仰卧HR(65.4±2.5vs.60.7±2.5bpmp<0.05),会话RPE(sRPE,7.0±1.0vs.6.0±1.3点,p=.001)和sRPE训练负荷(929±112vs.743±98,p<0.001)与DOUBLE相比。第二天早上,与DOUBLE(7.0±2.5vs.8.0±1.0点,p=.049和6.0±2.5vs.7.0±2.5点,分别为p=.002)。
■与两次短时间和强度匹配的训练相比,一次长期的中等强度训练与生理反应的持续时间依赖性“漂移”有关,从而暗示了更高的整体训练刺激。同时,两个较短会议的成本较低,表明这种组织可以在这种强度下允许更多的累积时间。总的来说,这些发现可以作为更好地理解组织中等强度训练的利弊的起点,因为长时间训练与较短的训练进行得更频繁(例如,作为“双门槛训练”)在耐力运动员中。
UNASSIGNED: To compare acute physiological responses and perceived training stress between one long and two short time- and intensity-matched sessions of moderate-intensity training in endurance athletes.
UNASSIGNED: Fourteen male endurance athletes (VO2max: 69.2 ± 4.2 mL·min-1·kg-1) performed one 6 × 10-min interval session (SINGLE) and two 3 × 10-min interval sessions interspersed with 6.5 h recovery (DOUBLE) of moderate-intensity training on two separate days, while running in the laboratory, using a counterbalanced cross-over trial. The two training days were separated into a first part/session (interval stage 1-3) and second part/session (interval stage 4-6). Respiratory variables, heart rate (HR), blood lactate concentrations (BLa), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were collected during sessions, whereas supine heart rate (HR) was assessed in a 60-min recovery period following sessions. Measures of perceived training stress (1-10) were assessed in the morning of the subsequent day.
UNASSIGNED: HR, Bla, and RPE increased in the second compared to first part of SINGLE (168 ± 7 vs. 173 ± 7 bpm, 2.60 ± 0.75 vs. 3.01 ± 0.81 mmol·L-1, and 13.4 ± 1.0 vs. 14.8 ± 1.1-point, respectively, all p < 0.05). HR and Bla decreased in the second compared to first session of DOUBLE (171 ± 9 vs. 166 ± 9 bpm and 2.72 ± 0.96 vs. 2.14 ± 0.65 mmol·L-1, respectively, both p < 0.05). SINGLE revealed higher supine HR in the recovery period following sessions (65.4 ± 2.5 vs. 60.7 ± 2.5 bpm p < 0.05), session RPE (sRPE, 7.0 ± 1.0 vs. 6.0 ± 1.3-point, p = .001) and sRPE training load (929 ± 112 vs. 743 ± 98, p < 0.001) compared to DOUBLE. In the subsequent morning, increased levels of perceived fatigue and muscle soreness were observed following SINGLE compared to DOUBLE (7.0 ± 2.5 vs. 8.0 ± 1.0-point, p = .049 and 6.0 ± 2.5 vs. 7.0 ± 2.5-point, p = .002, respectively).
UNASSIGNED: One long moderate-intensity training session was associated with a duration-dependent \"drift\" in physiological responses compared to two short time- and intensity-matched sessions, thereby suggesting a higher overall training stimulus. Simultaneously, the lower cost of the two shorter sessions indicates that such organization could allow more accumulated time at this intensity. Overall, these findings serve as a starting point to better understand the pros and cons of organizing moderate-intensity training as one long versus shorter sessions performed more frequently (e.g., as \"double threshold training\") in endurance athletes.