Gojanovic Boris, Shultz Rebecca, Feihl Francois, Matheson Gordon
1Department of Sports Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; 2Sports Medicine, Department of Human Locomotion, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV) and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, SWITZERLAND; 3Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Human Performance Laboratory, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA; and 4Clinical Pathophysiology, Department of Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV) and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, SWITZERLAND.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015 Dec;47(12):2571-8. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000707.
Optimal high-intensity interval training (HIIT) regimens for running performance are unknown, although most protocols result in some benefit to key performance factors (running economy (RE), anaerobic threshold (AT), or maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max)). Lower-body positive pressure (LBPP) treadmills offer the unique possibility to partially unload runners and reach supramaximal speeds. We studied the use of LBPP to test an overspeed HIIT protocol in trained runners.
Eleven trained runners (35 ± 8 yr, VO2max, 55.7 ± 6.4 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹) were randomized to an LBPP (n = 6) or a regular treadmill (CON, n = 5), eight sessions over 4 wk of HIIT program. Four to five intervals were run at 100% of velocity at VO2max (vVO2max) during 60% of time to exhaustion at vVO2max (Tlim) with a 1:1 work:recovery ratio. Performance outcomes were 2-mile track time trial, VO2max, vVO2max, vAT, Tlim, and RE. LBPP sessions were carried out at 90% body weight.
Group-time effects were present for vVO2max (CON, 17.5 vs. 18.3, P = 0.03; LBPP, 19.7 vs. 22.3 km·h⁻¹; P < 0.001) and Tlim (CON, 307.0 vs. 404.4 s, P = 0.28; LBPP, 444.5 vs. 855.5, P < 0.001). Simple main effects for time were present for field performance (CON, -18; LBPP, -25 s; P = 0.002), VO2max (CON, 57.6 vs. 59.6; LBPP, 54.1 vs. 55.1 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹; P = 0.04) and submaximal HR (157.7 vs. 154.3 and 151.4 vs. 148.5 bpm; P = 0.002). RE was unchanged.
A 4-wk HIIT protocol at 100% vVO2max improves field performance, vVO2max, VO2max and submaximal HR in trained runners. Improvements are similar if intervals are run on a regular treadmill or at higher speeds on a LPBB treadmill with 10% body weight reduction. LBPP could provide an alternative for taxing HIIT sessions.
尽管大多数高强度间歇训练（HIIT）方案对关键性能因素（跑步经济性（RE）、无氧阈（AT）或最大摄氧量（VO2max））都有一定益处，但针对跑步成绩的最佳HIIT方案尚不清楚。下肢正压（LBPP）跑步机提供了一种独特的可能性，即部分减轻跑步者的体重并达到超最大速度。我们研究了使用LBPP来测试训练有素的跑步者的超速HIIT方案。
11名训练有素的跑步者（35±8岁，VO2max为55.7±6.4 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹）被随机分为LBPP组（n = 6）或常规跑步机组（CON，n = 5），在4周的HIIT计划中进行8次训练。在达到VO2max时的速度（vVO2max）的100%下进行4至5次间歇训练，持续时间为达到vVO2max时的力竭时间（Tlim）的60%，工作与恢复比例为1:1。性能指标包括2英里跑道计时赛、VO2max、vVO2max、vAT、Tlim和RE。LBPP训练在体重的90%下进行。
vVO2max存在组间时间效应（CON组，17.5对18.3，P = 0.03；LBPP组，19.7对22.3 km·h⁻¹；P < 0.001）和Tlim（CON组，307.0对404.4秒，P = 0.28；LBPP组，444.5对855.5，P < 0.001）。时间的简单主效应在场地表现方面存在（CON组，-18；LBPP组，-25秒；P = 0.002），VO2max方面（CON组，57.6对59.6；LBPP组，54.1对55.1 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹；P = 0.04）以及次最大心率方面（157.7对154.3以及151.4对148.5次/分钟；P = 0.002）。RE没有变化。
在100% vVO2max下进行4周的HIIT方案可提高训练有素的跑步者的场地表现、vVO2max、VO2max和次最大心率。如果在常规跑步机上进行间歇训练或在LBPP跑步机上以减轻10%体重的更高速度进行间歇训练，改善效果相似。LBPP可为高强度HIIT训练提供一种替代方案。
