Key result
The 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test accurately assesses VO2peak but alters postexercise parasympathetic function more than a continuous test, with longer HR recovery time (81.9 vs 60.5, p<0.001).
Why the study?
Does the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test alter cardiorespiratory and autonomic responses compared to a standard continuous test in team sport players?
Cross-Sectional (n=20)
Does the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test alter cardiorespiratory and autonomic responses compared to a standard continuous test in team sport players?
May warrant caution interpreting HR recovery after 30-15 testing in athletes; leaves open optimal protocol selection for autonomic assessment.
The 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) is an attractive alternative to classic continuous incremental field tests for defining a reference velocity for interval training prescription in team sport athletes. The aim of the present study was to compare cardiorespiratory and autonomic responses to 30-15IFT with those observed during a standard continuous test (CT). In 20 team sport players (20.9 +/- 2.2 years), cardiopulmonary parameters were measured during exercise and for 10 minutes after both tests. Final running velocity, peak lactate ([La]peak), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were also measured. Parasympathetic function was assessed during the postexercise recovery phase via heart rate (HR) recovery time constant (HRR[tau]) and HR variability (HRV) vagal-related indices. At exhaustion, no difference was observed in peak oxygen uptake VO2peak), respiratory exchange ratio, HR, or RPE between 30-15IFT and CT. In contrast, 30-15IFT led to significantly higher minute ventilation, [La]peak, and final velocity than CT (p < 0.05 for all parameters). All maximal cardiorespiratory variables observed during both tests were moderately to well correlated (e.g., r = 0.76, p = 0.001 for [latin capital VO2peak). Regarding ventilatory thresholds (VThs), all cardiorespiratory measurements were similar and well correlated between the 2 tests. Parasympathetic function was lower after 30-15IFT than after CT, as indicated by significantly longer HHR[tau] (81.9 +/- 18.2 vs. 60.5 +/- 19.5 for 30-15IFT and CT, respectively, p < 0.001) and lower HRV vagal-related indices (i.e., the root mean square of successive R-R intervals differences [rMSSD]: 4.1 +/- 2.4 and 7.0 +/- 4.9 milliseconds, p < 0.05). In conclusion, the 30-15IFT is accurate for assessing VThs and VO2peak, but it alters postexercise parasympathetic function more than a continuous incremental protocol.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Buchheit et al. (2009) conducted a cross-sectional in Team sport players (n=20). 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) vs. Standard continuous test (CT) was evaluated on Heart rate recovery time constant (HRR[tau]) (p=<0.001). The 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test accurately assesses VO2peak but alters postexercise parasympathetic function more than a continuous test, with longer HR recovery time (81.9 vs 60.5, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: