Key result
Hypoxic interval training shows no benefit over normoxic training for improving anaerobic capacity.
Why the study?
It was unclear if eight sessions of supramaximal steady-state interval training in hypoxia enhance anaerobic capacity and high intensity work performance in endurance cyclists.
Does 4-week interval training in hypoxia improve anaerobic capacity and high-intensity work capacity in endurance cyclists compared to normoxia?
RCT (n=18)
Pair-matched
Does 4-week interval training in hypoxia improve anaerobic capacity and high-intensity work capacity in endurance cyclists compared to normoxia?
Absolute Event Rate: 4% vs -5%
Steady-state supramaximal interval training in hypoxia may provide a small within-group benefit on work capacity, but did not significantly outperform normoxic training in between-group comparisons.
Small within-group work capacity gains with IHT; hypothesis-generating and leaves open superiority over normoxic training in endurance athletes.
Aim: This study aimed to determine if eight sessions of supramaximal but steady-state, set duration interval training in hypoxia enhanced measured anaerobic capacity and work performed during high intensity exercise. High Alt Med Biol. 21:370–377, 2020. Materials and Methods: Eighteen cyclists ( V̇ O 2peak : 57 ± 7 ml·kg −1 ·min −1 ) were pair-matched for anaerobic capacity determined by maximal accumulated oxygen deficit (MAOD) and allocated to a 4-week interval training in hypoxia (IHT; FiO 2 = 14.7% ± 0.5%, n = 9) or interval training in normoxia (NORM; FiO 2 = 20.6% ± 0.3%, n = 9). Cyclists completed twice weekly interval training (8 × 1 minutes: ∼120% V̇ O 2peak , 5 minutes recovery: ∼50% V̇ O 2peak ) in addition to their habitual training. Before and after the intervention, a constant work rate supramaximal time to fatigue and a graded exercise test were used to determine changes in anaerobic capacity/supramaximal work performed and aerobic capacity/peak aerobic power output, respectively. Results: No interaction or main effects were observed. Using indirect calorimetry, anaerobic capacity was not significantly different in either group pre- to postintervention using MAOD (IHT: 4% ± 15%; NORM: −5% ± 12%) or gross efficiency methods (IHT: 7% ± 14%; NORM: −2% ± 9%), and VO 2peak was unchanged (IHT: 1% ± 6%; NORM: 1% ± 4%). However, within-group analysis shows that supramaximal work performed improved with IHT (14% ± 13%; p = 0.02; d = 0.42) but not NORM (1% ± 22%), and peak aerobic power output increased with IHT (5% ± 7%; p = 0.04; d = 0.32) but not NORM (2% ± 4%). Conclusion: Steady-state, set duration supramaximal interval training in hypoxia appears to provide a small beneficial effect on work capacity during supramaximal and high intensity exercise.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arezzolo et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Endurance cyclists (n=18). Interval training in hypoxia (IHT) vs. Interval training in normoxia (NORM) was evaluated on Anaerobic capacity (MAOD). Four weeks of interval training in hypoxia did not significantly improve anaerobic capacity compared to normoxia, though it improved supramaximal work performed within the hypoxia group (p=0.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: