Key result
HIIT guided by anaerobic speed reserve cuts VO2max adaptation variability ~69% versus maximal aerobic speed.
Why the study?
Accurately prescribing supramaximal interval training facilitates targeting desired physiological adaptations, but the homogeneity of cardiorespiratory adaptations across different individualization methods needed comparison.
Does supramaximal interval training prescribed using ASR or VIFT improve the homogeneity of physiological adaptations compared to MAS in national-level soccer players?
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?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.09% vs 0.29%
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.
ASR- or VIFT-based HIIT may yield more uniform VO2max gains in soccer players; extends training prescription research beyond MAS-centric approaches.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dai et al. (2023) conducted an 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).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: