TY - JOUR
T1 - Cardiorespiratory and perceptual responses of two interval training and a continuous training protocol in healthy young men
AU - Naves, João Pedro Araújo
AU - Rebelo, Ana Cristina Silva
AU - Silva, Lucas Raphael Bento E.
AU - Silva, Maria Sebastiana
AU - Ramirez-Campillo, Rodrigo
AU - Ramírez-Vélez, Robinson
AU - Gentil, Paulo
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, © 2018 European College of Sport Science.
PY - 2019/5/28
Y1 - 2019/5/28
N2 - High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) can be performed with different effort to rest time-configurations, and this can largely influence training responses. The purpose of the study was to compare the acute physiological responses of two HIIT and one moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) protocol in young men. A randomised cross-over study with 10 men [age, 28.3 ± 5.5years; weight, 77.3 ± 9.3 kg; height, 1.8 ± 0.1 m; peak oxygen consumption (VO 2 peak), 44 ± 11 mL.kg −1 .min −1 ]. Participants performed a cardiorespiratory test on a treadmill to assess VO 2 peak, velocity associated with VO 2 peak (vVO 2 peak), peak heart rate (HRpeak) and perceived exertion (RPE). Then participants performed three protocols equated by distance: Short HIIT (29 bouts of 30s at vVO 2 peak, interspersed by 30s of passive recovery, 29 min in total), Long HIIT (3 bouts of 4 min at 90% of vVO 2 peak, interspersed by 3 min of recovery at 60% of vVO 2 peak, 21 min in total) and MICT (21 min at 70% of vVO 2 peak). The protocols were performed in a randomised order with ≥48 h between them. VO 2 , HRpeak and RPE were compared. VO 2 peak in Long HIIT was significantly higher than Short HIIT and MICT (43 ± 11 vs 32 ± 8 and 37 ± 8 mL.kg −1 .min −1 , respectively, P < 0.05), as well as peak HR (181 ± 10 vs 168 ± 8 and 167 ± 11, respectively, P < 0.05), and RPE (17 ± 4 vs 14 ± 4 and 15 ± 4, respectively, P < 0.05), with no difference between Short HIIT and MICT. In conclusion, Long HIIT promoted higher acute increases in VO 2 , HR and RPE than Short HIIT and MICT, suggesting a higher demand on the cardiorespiratory system. Short HIIT and MICT presented similar physiologic and perceptual responses, despite Short HIIT being performed at higher velocities.
AB - High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) can be performed with different effort to rest time-configurations, and this can largely influence training responses. The purpose of the study was to compare the acute physiological responses of two HIIT and one moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) protocol in young men. A randomised cross-over study with 10 men [age, 28.3 ± 5.5years; weight, 77.3 ± 9.3 kg; height, 1.8 ± 0.1 m; peak oxygen consumption (VO 2 peak), 44 ± 11 mL.kg −1 .min −1 ]. Participants performed a cardiorespiratory test on a treadmill to assess VO 2 peak, velocity associated with VO 2 peak (vVO 2 peak), peak heart rate (HRpeak) and perceived exertion (RPE). Then participants performed three protocols equated by distance: Short HIIT (29 bouts of 30s at vVO 2 peak, interspersed by 30s of passive recovery, 29 min in total), Long HIIT (3 bouts of 4 min at 90% of vVO 2 peak, interspersed by 3 min of recovery at 60% of vVO 2 peak, 21 min in total) and MICT (21 min at 70% of vVO 2 peak). The protocols were performed in a randomised order with ≥48 h between them. VO 2 , HRpeak and RPE were compared. VO 2 peak in Long HIIT was significantly higher than Short HIIT and MICT (43 ± 11 vs 32 ± 8 and 37 ± 8 mL.kg −1 .min −1 , respectively, P < 0.05), as well as peak HR (181 ± 10 vs 168 ± 8 and 167 ± 11, respectively, P < 0.05), and RPE (17 ± 4 vs 14 ± 4 and 15 ± 4, respectively, P < 0.05), with no difference between Short HIIT and MICT. In conclusion, Long HIIT promoted higher acute increases in VO 2 , HR and RPE than Short HIIT and MICT, suggesting a higher demand on the cardiorespiratory system. Short HIIT and MICT presented similar physiologic and perceptual responses, despite Short HIIT being performed at higher velocities.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057611297&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85057611297&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/17461391.2018.1548650
DO - 10.1080/17461391.2018.1548650
M3 - Research Article
C2 - 30496024
AN - SCOPUS:85057611297
SN - 1746-1391
VL - 19
SP - 653
EP - 660
JO - European Journal of Sport Science
JF - European Journal of Sport Science
IS - 5
ER -