The HIIT 86 model was clearly more effective at improving peak treadmill speed, ventilatory thresholds, repeated sprint ability, and squat jump height compared to the HIIT 100 model.
Does a high-intensity interval training model at 86% of peak speed improve physiological and performance adaptations compared to a 100% peak speed model in young futsal players?
A shuttle-run high-intensity interval training model at 86% of peak speed with longer sets was more effective for improving aerobic, repeated sprint, and neuromuscular parameters than a 100% peak speed model with shorter sets in young futsal players.
Estimación del efecto: Δ = 5.4%
Tasa de eventos absoluta: 1.6% vs 1%
Introduction The present study aimed to investigate the effects of two high-intensity interval training (HIIT) shuttle-run-based models, over 10 weeks on aerobic, anaerobic, and neuromuscular parameters, and the association of the training load and heart rate variability (HRV) with the change in the measures in young futsal players. Methods Eleven young male futsal players (age: 18.5 ± 1.1 years; body mass: 70.5 ± 5.7 kg) participated in this study. This pre-post study design was performed during a typical 10 weeks training period. HIIT sessions were conducted at 86% (HIIT 86 ; n = 6) and 100% (HIIT 100 ; n = 5) of peak speed of the FIET. Additionally, friendly and official matches, technical-tactical and strength-power training sessions were performed. Before and after the training period, all players performed the FIET, treadmill incremental, repeated sprint ability (RSA), sprint 15-m, and vertical jump tests (CMJ and SJ), and the HRV was measured. Training load (TL) was monitored using the session rating of perceived effort. Data analysis was carried out using Bayesian inference methods. Results The HIIT 86 model showed clear improvements for the peak oxygen uptake (VO 2 peak), peak speed in the treadmill incremental test, first and second ventilatory thresholds, RSA best and mean times, CMJ, and SJ. The HIIT 100 model presented distinct advances in VO 2 peak, peak speed in the treadmill incremental test, RSA mean time, and CMJ. Between HIIT models comparisons showed more favorable probabilities of improvement for HIIT 86 than HIIT 100 model in all parameters. TL data and HIIT models strongly explained the changes in the RSA mean and best times ( R 2 = 0.71 and 0.87, respectively), as well as HRV changes, and HIIT models explained positively VO 2 peak changes ( R 2 = 0.72). All other changes in the parameters were low to moderately explained. Conclusion The HIIT 86 proved to be more effective for improving aerobic, RSA, and neuromuscular parameters than HIIT 100 during a typical 10-week futsal training period. So, strength and conditioning specialists prescribing shuttle-run intermittent exercises at submaximal intensities can manage the individual acceleration load imposed on athlete increasing or decreasing either the set duration or the frequency of change of direction during HIIT programming.
Campos et al. (Fri,) conducted a other in Healthy young male futsal players (n=11). HIIT 86 (shuttle-run HIIT at 86% of peak speed) vs. HIIT 100 (8 sets of 60 s bouts at 100% of peak speed) was evaluated on Peak speed in treadmill incremental test (PSTREADMILL) (Δ = 5.4%). The HIIT 86 model was clearly more effective at improving peak treadmill speed, ventilatory thresholds, repeated sprint ability, and squat jump height compared to the HIIT 100 model.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: