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).
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?
Tasa de eventos absoluta: 81.9% vs 60.5%
valor p: p=<0.001
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 (Lapeak), 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 (HRRtau) 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, Lapeak, 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.
Buchheit et al. (Thu,) 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).