This study compared the performance and physiological adaptations of short-term repeated-sprint training in HOT (40ºC and 40% RH) and COOL (20ºC and 40% RH) conditions in team-sport athletes. Twenty-five trained males completed 5 training sessions of 60 min over 7 days in HOT (n=13) or COOL (n=12), consisting of a submaximal warm-up and 4 sets of maximal sprints. Before and after the intervention, intermittent shuttle running performance was assessed in cool and repeated-sprint ability in hot conditions, the latter preceded and followed by neuromuscular function testing. During the repeated-sprint training sessions skin (~8.4ºC) and core (~0.17ºC) temperature were higher in HOT than COOL (P<0.05). Shuttle running distance increased after both interventions (P<0.001), with a non-significant (P=0.131) but larger effect in HOT (315 m, d=1.18) than COOL (207 m, d=0.51). Mean (~7%, P<0.001) and peak (~5%, P<0.05) power during repeated-sprinting increased following both interventions, whereas peak twitch force before the repeated-sprint assessment was ~10% lower after the interventions (P=0.001). Heart rate during the repeated-sprint warm-up was reduced (~6 beats.min-1) following both interventions (P<0.001). Rectal temperature was ~0.14ºC lower throughout the repeated-sprint assessment after the interventions (P<0.001), with larger effects in HOT than COOL during the warm-up (P=0.082; d=-0.53 vs. d=-0.15) and repeated-sprints (P=0.081; d=-0.54 vs. d=-0.02). Skin temperature (P=0.004, d=-1.11) and thermal sensation (P=0.015, d=-0.93) were lower during the repeated-sprints after training in HOT than COOL. Sweat rate increased (0.2 L.h-1) only after training in HOT (P=0.027; d=0.72). The intensive nature of brief repeated-sprint training induces similar improvements in repeated-sprint cycling ability in hot conditions and intermittent running performance in cool conditions, along with analogous physiological adaptations, irrespective of the environmental conditions in which training is undertaken.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Périard et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: