Supramaximal high-intensity interval training prescribed using anaerobic speed reserve (CV 0.09) or VIFT (CV 0.12) resulted in lower inter-individual variability in relative VO2max adaptations compared to training based on maximal aerobic speed (CV 0.29).
RCT (n=30)
Single-blind
Simple randomization
No
Does supramaximal interval training prescribed using ASR or VIFT improve the homogeneity of physiological adaptations compared to MAS in national-level soccer players?
Prescribing supramaximal interval training using anaerobic speed reserve or VIFT rather than maximal aerobic speed leads to more homogenized physiological adaptations across athletes with differing profiles.
Absolute Event Rate: 0.09% vs 0.29%
Accurately prescribing supramaximal interval training facilitates targeting desired physiological adaptations. This study compared the homogeneity of adaptations in cardiorespiratory parameters to supramaximal i.e., intensities beyond maximal aerobic speed (MAS) interval interventions prescribed using anaerobic speed reserve (ASR), the speed attained at the end of 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (VIFT), and MAS. Using repeated-measures factorial design, and during the off-season phase of the athletes’ yearly training cycle, thirty national-level soccer players (age = 19 ± 1.6 years; body mass = 78.9 ± 1.6 kg; height = 179 ± 4.7 cm; Body fat = 11 ± 0.9%) were randomized to interventions consisting of 2 sets of 6, 7, 8, 7, 8, and 9-min intervals (from 1st to 6th week), including 15 s running at Δ%20ASR (MAS + 0.2 × ASR), 120%MAS, or 95%VIFT followed by 15 s passive recovery. All ASR, VIFT, and MAS programs sufficiently stimulated adaptive mechanisms, improving relative maximal oxygen uptake V̇O2max (p < 0.05; ES = 1.6, 1.2, and 1.1, respectively), absolute V̇O2max (p < 0.05; ES = 1.5, 1.1, and 0.7), ventilation V̇E (p < 0.05; ES = 1.6, 1.1, and 1.1), O2 pulse V̇O2/HR (p < 0.05; ES = 1.4, 1.1, and 0.6), first and second ventilatory threshold VT1 (p < 0.05; ES = 0.7, 0.8, and 0.7) and VT2 (p < 0.05; ES = 1.1, 1.1, and 0.8), cardiac output Q̇max (p = 1.5, 1.0, and 0.7), and stroke volume SVmax (p < 0.05; ES = 0.9, 0.7, and 0.5). Although there was no between-group difference for the change in the abovementioned variables over time, supramaximal interval training prescribed using ASR and VIFT resulted in a lower coefficient of variation CV (inter-individual variability) in physiological adaptations compared to exercise intensity determined as a proportion of MAS. Expressing the intensity of supramaximal interval programs according to the athlete’s ASR and VIFT would assist in accurately prescribing interventions and facilitate imposing mechanical and related physiological stimulus according to the athletes’ physiological ceiling. Such an approach leads to identical stimulation across athletes with differing profiles and potentially facilitates more homogenized adaptations.
Dai et al. (Wed,) conducted a rct in Healthy national-level soccer players (n=30). Supramaximal high-intensity interval training using anaerobic speed reserve (ASR) or VIFT vs. HIIT using maximal aerobic speed (MAS) was evaluated on Coefficient of variation (CV) for relative VO2max percent change. Supramaximal high-intensity interval training prescribed using anaerobic speed reserve (CV 0.09) or VIFT (CV 0.12) resulted in lower inter-individual variability in relative VO2max adaptations compared to training based on maximal aerobic speed (CV 0.29).