Key result
Interval hypoxic training leads to smaller improvements in Yo-Yo IR2 performance versus placebo.
Why the study?
There is a paucity of data examining the impact of high-intensity interval hypoxic training on intermittent running performance in team sport athletes.
Does interval hypoxic training improve intermittent running performance in amateur Australian Footballers?
RCT (n=17)
Does interval hypoxic training improve intermittent running performance in amateur Australian Footballers?
Standardized Mean Difference: -0.42 (95% CI -0.82–-0.02)
Interval hypoxic training alters pacing strategies in team sport athletes but leads to smaller improvements in externally paced high-intensity intermittent running performance compared to normoxic training.
Interval hypoxic training should not be recommended for amateur Australian footballers; challenges presumed performance benefits of hypoxia in team sports.
There is a paucity of data examining the impact of high-intensity interval hypoxic training (IHT) on intermittent running performance. This study assessed the effects of IHT on 17 amateur Australian Footballers, who completed 8 interval treadmill running sessions (IHT [FIO2 = 15.1%] or PLACEBO) over 4 weeks, in addition to normoxic football (2 per week) and resistance (2 per week) training sessions. To match relative training intensity, absolute IHT intensity reduced by 6% of normoxic vV[Combining Dot Above]O2peak compared with PLACEBO. Before and after the intervention, performance was assessed by Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test level 2 (Yo-Yo IR2) and a self-paced team sport running protocol. Standardized effect size statistics were calculated using Cohen's d to compare between the interventions. Compared with PLACEBO, IHT subjects experienced (a) smaller improvements in Yo-Yo IR2 performance (Cohen's d = -0.42 [-0.82 to -0.02; 90% confidence interval]); (b) similar increases in high-intensity running distance during the team sport protocol (d = 0.17 [-0.50 to 0.84]); and (c) greater improvements in total distance (d = 0.72 [0.33-1.10]) and distance covered during low-intensity activity (d = 0.59 [-0.07 to 1.11]) during the team sport protocol. The lower absolute training intensity of IHT may explain the smaller improvements in Yo-Yo IR2 performance in the hypoxic group. Conversely, the data from the self-paced protocol suggest that IHT may positively influence pacing strategies in team sport athletes. In conclusion, IHT alters pacing strategies in team sport athletes (i.e., increased distance covered during low-intensity activity). However, IHT leads to smaller improvements in externally paced high-intensity intermittent running performance (i.e., Yo-Yo IR2), which may be related to a reduced absolute training intensity during IHT sessions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McLean et al. (2015) conducted an RCT in Amateur Australian Footballers (n=17). Interval hypoxic training (IHT) vs. PLACEBO was evaluated on Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test level 2 (Yo-Yo IR2) performance (Cohen's d -0.42, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.02). Interval hypoxic training led to smaller improvements in Yo-Yo IR2 performance compared with placebo (Cohen's d = -0.42; 90% CI -0.82 to -0.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: