Key result
Low-frequency interval training consisting of two longer sessions per week significantly improved 8 km rollerski time-trial performance from 31.8 to 30.6 minutes (p=0.04), whereas four shorter sessions did not.
Why the study?
Does low-frequency interval training improve time-trial performance and physiological adaptations compared to high-frequency interval training in elite endurance athletes?
RCT (n=20)
Open-label
Randomly assigned
No
Does low-frequency interval training improve time-trial performance and physiological adaptations compared to high-frequency interval training in elite endurance athletes?
Standardized Mean Difference: 0.17
p-value: p=0.04
Two longer interval sessions per week appear superior to four shorter sessions of matched volume and intensity for improving endurance adaptations and performance in elite athletes.
Two longer weekly interval sessions may improve time-trial performance in elites more than four shorter ones; leaves open optimal frequency for broader populations.
Purpose: To determine the impact of interval training frequency in elite endurance athletes. It was hypothesized that two longer sessions would elicit greater performance improvements and physiological adaptation than four shorter sessions at the same intensity. Methods: Elite cross-country skiers and biathletes were randomly assigned to either a high-frequency group (HF group) (5 M, 1 F, age 22 (19–26), VO2max 67.8 (65.5–70.2) mL/kg/min) doing four short interval sessions per week or a low-frequency group (LF group) (8 M, 1 F, age 22 (18–23), VO2max 70.7 (67.0–73.9) mL/kg/min) doing two longer interval sessions. All interval sessions were performed at ~85% of maximum heart rate, and groups were matched for total weekly training volume. Pre- and post-intervention, athletes completed an 8 km rollerski time-trial, maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) test, and an incremental, submaximal exercise test. Results: The LF group had a statistically significant improved time-trial performance following the intervention (p = 0.04), with no statistically significant changes in the HF group. Similarly, percentage utilization of VO2max at anaerobic threshold (p = 0.04) and exercise economy (p = 0.01) were statistically significantly improved following the intervention in the LF group only. No statistically significant changes in VO2max were observed in either group. Conclusions: Two longer interval sessions appear superior to four shorter sessions per week in promoting endurance adaptations and performance improvements in elite endurance athletes. Despite matched training volume and exercise intensity, the larger, more concentrated exercise stimulus in the LF group appears to induce more favorable adaptations. The longer time between training sessions in the LF group may also have allowed athletes to recover more effectively and better “absorb” the training. These findings are in line with the “best practice” observed by many of the world’s best endurance athletes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tønnessen et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Elite endurance athletes (n=20). Low-frequency interval training vs. High-frequency interval training (four shorter sessions per week) was evaluated on 8 km rollerski time-trial performance (ES 0.17, p=0.04). Low-frequency interval training consisting of two longer sessions per week significantly improved 8 km rollerski time-trial performance from 31.8 to 30.6 minutes (p=0.04), whereas four shorter sessions did not.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: