Esteve-Lanao Jonathan, Foster Carl, Seiler Stephen, Lucia Alejandro
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, European University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
J Strength Cond Res. 2007 Aug;21(3):943-9. doi: 10.1519/R-19725.1.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of 2 training programs differing in the relative contribution of training volume, clearly below vs. within the lactate threshold/maximal lactate steady state region on performance in endurance runners. Twelve subelite endurance runners (who are specialists in track events, mostly the 5,000-m race usually held during spring-summer months and who also participate in cross-country races [9-12 km] during fall and winter months) were randomly assigned to a training program emphasizing low-intensity (subthreshold) (Z1) or moderately high-intensity (between thresholds) (Z2) training intensities. At the start of the study, the subjects performed a maximal exercise test to determine ventilatory (VT) and respiratory compensation thresholds (RCT), which allowed training to be controlled based on heart rate during each training session over a 5-month training period. Subjects performed a simulated 10.4-km cross-country race before and after the training period. Training was quantified based on the cumulative time spent in 3 intensity zones: zone 1 (low intensity; <VT), zone 2 (moderate intensity; between VT and RCT), and zone 3 (high intensity; >RCT). The contribution of total training time spent in zones 1 and 2 was controlled to have relatively more low-intensity training in Z1 (80.5 +/- 1.8% and 11.8 +/- 2.0%, respectively) than in Z2 (66.8 +/- 1.1% and 24.7 +/- 1.5%, respectively), whereas the contribution of high-intensity (zone 3) training was similar (8.3 +/- 0.7% [Z1] and 8.5 +/- 1.0% [Z2]). The magnitude of the improvement in running performance was significantly greater (p = 0.03) in Z1 (-157 +/- 13 seconds) than in Z2 (-121.5 +/- 7.1 seconds). These results provide experimental evidence supporting the value of a relatively large percentage of low-intensity training over a long period ( approximately 5 months), provided that the contribution of high-intensity training remains sufficient.
本研究的目的是比较两种训练方案的效果，这两种方案在训练量的相对贡献上有所不同，明显低于乳酸阈值/最大乳酸稳态区域与处于该区域内，对耐力跑运动员的成绩影响各异。12名次精英耐力跑运动员（他们是径赛项目的专家，大多擅长5000米比赛，通常在春夏季节举行，并且在秋冬季节也参加9至12公里的越野赛）被随机分配到一个强调低强度（阈下）（Z1）或中等高强度（阈间）（Z2）训练强度的训练方案中。在研究开始时，受试者进行了一次最大运动测试，以确定通气阈值（VT）和呼吸补偿阈值（RCT），这使得在为期5个月的训练期间，每次训练课都能根据心率来控制训练。受试者在训练期前后进行了一次模拟的10.4公里越野赛。训练根据在三个强度区域所花费的累计时间进行量化：区域1（低强度；<VT）、区域2（中等强度；VT与RCT之间）和区域3（高强度；>RCT）。控制区域1和区域2所花费的总训练时间的占比，使得Z1中的低强度训练相对更多（分别为80.5±1.8%和11.8±2.0%），高于Z2（分别为66.8±1.1%和24.7±1.5%），而高强度（区域3）训练的占比相似（Z1为8.3±0.7%，Z2为8.5±1.0%）。Z1组跑步成绩的提高幅度（-157±13秒）显著大于（p = 0.03）Z2组（-121.5±7.1秒）。这些结果提供了实验证据，支持长期（约5个月）进行相对较大比例低强度训练的价值，前提是高强度训练的占比保持充足。
