Hypoxic conditions and exercise-to-rest ratio are likely paramount

Effects of Altitude/Hypoxia on Single- and Multiple-Sprint Performance: A Comprehensive Review

Many sport competitions, typically involving the completion of single- (e.g. track-and-field or track cycling events) and multiple-sprint exercises (e.g. team and racquet sports, cycling races), are staged at terrestrial altitudes ranging from 1000 to 2500 m. Our aim was to comprehensively review the current knowledge on the responses to either acute or chronic altitude exposure relevant to single and multiple sprints. Performance of a single sprint is generally not negatively affected by acute exposure to simulated altitude (i.e. normobaric hypoxia) because an enhanced anaerobic energy release compensates for the reduced aerobic adenosine triphosphate production. Conversely, the reduction in air density in terrestrial altitude (i.e. hypobaric hypoxia) leads to an improved sprinting performance when aerodynamic drag is a limiting factor. With the repetition of maximal efforts, however, repeated-sprint ability is more altered (i.e. with earlier and larger performance decrements) at high altitudes (>3000-3600 m or inspired fraction of oxygen <14.4-13.3%) compared with either normoxia or low-to-moderate altitudes (<3000 m or inspired fraction of oxygen >14.4%). Traditionally, altitude training camps involve chronic exposure to low-to-moderate terrestrial altitudes (<3000 m or inspired fraction of oxygen >14.4%) for inducing haematological adaptations. However, beneficial effects on sprint performance after such altitude interventions are still debated. Recently, innovative 'live low-train high' methods, in isolation or in combination with hypoxic residence, have emerged with the belief that up-regulated non-haematological peripheral adaptations may further improve performance of multiple sprints compared with similar normoxic interventions.

Similar Inflammatory Responses following Sprint Interval Training Performed in Hypoxia and Normoxia

Sprint interval training (SIT) is an efficient intervention capable of improving aerobic capacity and exercise performance. This experiment aimed to determine differences in training adaptations and the inflammatory responses following 2 weeks of SIT (30 s maximal work, 4 min recovery; 4-7 repetitions) performed in normoxia or hypoxia. Forty-two untrained participants [(mean ± SD), age 21 ±1 years, body mass 72.1 ±11.4 kg, and height 173 ±10 cm] were equally and randomly assigned to one of three groups; control (CONT; no training, n = 14), normoxic (NORM; SIT in FiO2: 0.21, n = 14), and normobaric hypoxic (HYP; SIT in FiO2: 0.15, n = 14). Participants completed a [Formula: see text] test, a time to exhaustion (TTE) trial (power = 80% [Formula: see text]) and had hematological [hemoglobin (Hb), haematocrit (Hct)] and inflammatory markers [interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα)] measured in a resting state, pre and post SIT. [Formula: see text] (mL.kg(-1).min(-1)) improved in HYP (+11.9%) and NORM (+9.8%), but not CON (+0.9%). Similarly TTE improved in HYP (+32.2%) and NORM (+33.0%), but not CON (+3.4%) whilst the power at the anaerobic threshold (AT; W.kg(-1)) also improved in HYP (+13.3%) and NORM (+8.0%), but not CON (-0.3%). AT (mL.kg(-1).min(-1)) improved in HYP (+9.5%), but not NORM (+5%) or CON (-0.3%). No between group change occurred in 30 s sprint performance or Hb and Hct. IL-6 increased in HYP (+17.4%) and NORM (+20.1%), but not CON (+1.2%), respectively. TNF-α increased in HYP (+10.8%) NORM (+12.9%) and CON (+3.4%). SIT in HYP and NORM increased [Formula: see text], power at AT and TTE performance in untrained individuals, improvements in AT occurred only when SIT was performed in HYP. Increases in IL-6 and TNFα reflect a training induced inflammatory response to SIT; hypoxic conditions do not exacerbate this.

Application of 'live low-train high' for enhancing normoxic exercise performance in team sport athletes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Hypoxic training techniques are increasingly used by athletes in an attempt to improve performance in normoxic environments. The 'live low-train high (LLTH)' model of hypoxic training may be of particular interest to athletes because LLTH protocols generally involve shorter hypoxic exposures (approximately two to five sessions per week of <3 h) than other traditional hypoxic training techniques (e.g., live high-train high or live high-train low). However, the methods employed in LLTH studies to date vary greatly with respect to exposure times, training intensities, training modalities, degrees of hypoxia and performance outcomes assessed. Whilst recent reviews provide some insight into how LLTH may be applied to enhance performance, little attention has been given to how training intensity/modality may specifically influence subsequent performance in normoxia. Therefore, this systematic review aims to evaluate the normoxic performance outcomes of the available LLTH literature, with a particular focus on training intensity and modality.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

A systematic search was conducted to capture all LLTH studies with a matched normoxic (control) training group and the assessment of performance under normoxic conditions. Studies were excluded if no training was completed during the hypoxic exposures, or if these exposures exceeded 3 h per day. Four electronic databases were searched (PubMed, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE and Web of Science) during August 2013, and these searches were supplemented by additional manual searches until December 2013.

RESULTS

After the electronic and manual searches, 40 papers were deemed to meet the inclusion criteria, representing 31 separate studies. Within these 31 studies, four types of LLTH were identified: (1) continuous low-intensity training in hypoxia (CHT, n = 16), (2) interval hypoxic training (IHT, n = 4), (3) repeated sprint training in hypoxia (RSH, n = 3) and (4) resistance training in hypoxia (RTH, n = 4). Four studies also used a combination of CHT and IHT. The majority of studies reported no difference in normoxic performance between the hypoxic and normoxic training groups (n = 19), while nine reported greater improvements in the hypoxic group and three reported poorer outcomes compared with the control group. Selection of training intensity (including matching relative or absolute intensity between normoxic and hypoxic groups) was identified as a key factor in mediating the subsequent normoxic performance outcomes. Five studies included some form of normoxic training for the hypoxic group and 14 studies assessed performance outcomes not specific to the training intensity/modality completed during the training intervention.

CONCLUSION

Four modes of LLTH are identified in the current literature (CHT, IHT, RSH and RTH), with training mode and intensity appearing to be key factors in mediating subsequent performance responses in normoxia. Improvements in normoxic performance appear most likely following high-intensity, short-term and intermittent training (e.g., IHT, RSH). LLTH programmes should carefully apply the principles of training and testing specificity and include some high-intensity training in normoxia. For RTH, it is unclear whether the associated adaptations are greater than those of traditional (maximal) resistance training programmes.