Comparison of anaerobic speed reserve and maximal aerobic speed methods to prescribe short format high-intensity interval training

Does anaerobic speed reserve influence post-activation performance enhancement in endurance runners?

We investigated the influence of anaerobic speed reserve (ASR) on post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE). Twenty-two endurance runners and triathletes were evaluated for maximum sprinting speed (MSS) and countermovement jump (CMJ) before (non-fatigued) and after (fatigued) an incremental running test. They were allocated in LASR (low-ASR) and HASR (high-ASR) groups for comparisons between conditions. HASR showed greater CMJ and MSS (both p ≤ 0.005) performances, with enhanced CMJ in fatigued condition (p ≤ 0.008). Significant correlations were found between ASR, CMJ, and MSS in both conditions (p ≤ 0.01) for the entire sample, and between ∆CMJ and ∆MSS (p ≤ 0.001) in LASR. Our results show that ASR profile influences PAPE.

Individualizing Basketball-Specific Interval Training Using Anaerobic Speed Reserve: Effects on Physiological and Hormonal Adaptations

PURPOSE

We compared the adaptive responses to supramaximal high-intensity interval training (HIIT) individualized according to anaerobic speed reserve (ASR), the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (VIFT), and velocity associated with maximum oxygen uptake (MAS) to determine which approach facilitates more identical adaptations across athletes with different profiles.

METHODS

Thirty national-level basketball players (age = 28.4 [5] y; body mass = 88.9 [6.3] kg; height = 190 [4.8] cm) were randomly assigned to 3 training groups performing 2 sets of 4, 6, 8, 6, 8, and 10-minute runs (from first to sixth week, respectively), consisting of 15-second running at Δ%20ASR (MAS + 0.2 × ASR), 95%VIFT, and 120%MAS, with 15 seconds recovery between efforts and a 3-minute relief between sets.

RESULTS

All 3 interval interventions significantly (P < .05) enhanced maximum oxygen uptake (V˙O2max), oxygen pulse (V˙O2/HR), first and second ventilatory threshold (VT1 and VT2), cardiac output (Q˙max), stroke volume, peak and average power output, testosterone levels, and testosterone-to-cortisol ratio following the training period. Different values of interindividual variability (coefficient of variation) for the percentage changes of the measured variables were observed in response to HIITASR, HIITvIFT, and HIITMAS for V˙O2max (8.7%, 18.8%, 34.6%, respectively), V˙O2/HR (9.5%, 15.0%, 28.6%), VT1 (9.6%, 19.6%, 34.6%), VT2 (21.8%, 32.4%, 56.7%), Q˙max (8.2%, 16.9%, 28.8%), stroke volume (7.9%, 15.2%, 23.5%), peak power output (20%, 22%, 37.3%), average power output (21.1%, 21.3%, 32.5%), testosterone (52.9%, 61.6%, 59.9%), and testosterone-to-cortisol ratio (55.1%, 59.5%, 57.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Supramaximal HIIT performed at Δ%20ASR resulted in more uniform physiological adaptations than HIIT interventions prescribed using VIFT or MAS. Although hormonal changes do not follow this approach, all the approaches induced an anabolic effect.

Uniform Homeostatic Stress Through Individualized Interval Training Facilitates Homogeneous Adaptations Across Rowers With Different Profiles

PURPOSE

This study compared the effects of individualizing supramaximal interval rowing interventions using anaerobic power reserve (APR [high-intensity interval training (HIIT) prescribed according to individual APR (HIITAPR)]) and power associated with maximal oxygen uptake (WV˙O2max [HIIT prescribed based on the individual WV˙O2max (HIITW)]) on the homogeneity of physiological and performance adaptations.

METHODS

Twenty-four well-trained rowers (age 24.8 [4.3] y, stature 182.5 [3] cm, body mass 86.1 [4.3]) were randomized into interventions consisting of 4 × 30-second intervals at 130%APR (WV˙O2max + 0.3 × maximal sprint power) with weekly progression by increasing the number of repetitions per set (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, from first to sixth session) and the same sets and repetitions with the intensity described as 130% WV˙O2max. The work-to-recovery ratio was 1:1 for repetitions and 3 minutes between sets. Responses of aerobic fitness indices, power output, cardiac hemodynamics, locomotor abilities, and time-trial performance were examined.

RESULTS

Both HIITAPR and HIITW interventions significantly improved V˙O2max, lactate threshold, cardiac hemodynamics, and 2000-m performance, with no between-groups difference in changes over time. However, HIITAPR resulted in a lower interindividual variability in adaptations in V˙O2max and related physiological parameters, but this is not the case for athletic performance, which can depend on a multitude of factors beyond physiological parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Results demonstrated that expressing supramaximal interval intensity as a proportion of APR facilitates imposing the same degrees of homeostatic stress and leads to more homogeneous physiological adaptations in maximal variables when compared to prescribing a supramaximal HIIT intervention using WV˙O2max. However, lower interindividual variability would be seen in submaximal variables if HIIT interventions were prescribed using WV˙O2max.