Foster Carl, Farland Courtney V, Guidotti Flavia, Harbin Michelle, Roberts Brianna, Schuette Jeff, Tuuri Andrew, Doberstein Scott T, Porcari John P
Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse , La Crosse, WI, USA.
Department of Human Movement and Sports Sciences, University of Rome Foro Italico , Rome, Italy.
J Sports Sci Med. 2015 Nov 24;14(4):747-55. eCollection 2015 Dec.
High intensity interval training (HIIT) has become an increasingly popular form of exercise due to its potentially large effects on exercise capacity and small time requirement. This study compared the effects of two HIIT protocols vs steady-state training on aerobic and anaerobic capacity following 8-weeks of training. Fifty-five untrained college-aged subjects were randomly assigned to three training groups (3x weekly). Steady-state (n = 19) exercised (cycle ergometer) 20 minutes at 90% of ventilatory threshold (VT). Tabata (n = 21) completed eight intervals of 20s at 170% VO2max/10s rest. Meyer (n = 15) completed 13 sets of 30s (20 min) @ 100% PVO2 max/ 60s recovery, average PO = 90% VT. Each subject did 24 training sessions during 8 weeks.
There were significant (p < 0.05) increases in VO2max (+19, +18 and +18%) and PPO (+17, +24 and +14%) for each training group, as well as significant increases in peak (+8, + 9 and +5%) & mean (+4, +7 and +6%) power during Wingate testing, but no significant differences between groups. Measures of the enjoyment of the training program indicated that the Tabata protocol was significantly less enjoyable (p < 0.05) than the steady state and Meyer protocols, and that the enjoyment of all protocols declined (p < 0.05) across the duration of the study. The results suggest that although HIIT protocols are time efficient, they are not superior to conventional exercise training in sedentary young adults. Key pointsSteady state training equivalent to HIIT in untrained studentsMild interval training presents very similar physiologic challenge compared to steady state trainingHIIT (particularly very high intensity variants were less enjoyable than steady state or mild interval trainingEnjoyment of training decreases across the course of an 8 week experimental training program.
高强度间歇训练（HIIT）因其对运动能力可能有显著影响且所需时间较短，已成为一种越来越受欢迎的运动形式。本研究比较了两种HIIT方案与稳态训练对8周训练后的有氧和无氧能力的影响。55名未受过训练的大学生被随机分为三个训练组（每周3次）。稳态组（n = 19）在通气阈值（VT）的90%下进行20分钟的（自行车测力计）运动。塔巴塔组（n = 21）以170%最大摄氧量进行8组20秒运动，每组间歇10秒休息。迈耶组（n = 15）以100%最大摄氧量进行13组30秒（共20分钟）运动，每组间歇60秒恢复，平均功率输出（PO）为90% VT。每位受试者在8周内进行24次训练。
每个训练组的最大摄氧量（分别增加19%、18%和18%）和峰值功率输出（分别增加17%、24%和14%）均有显著（p < 0.05）提高，在温盖特测试中的峰值功率（分别增加8%、9%和5%）和平均功率（分别增加4%、7%和6%）也有显著提高，但组间无显著差异。对训练计划的喜爱程度测量表明，塔巴塔方案的喜爱程度显著低于（p < 0.05）稳态和迈耶方案，且在整个研究过程中，所有方案的喜爱程度均下降（p < 0.05）。结果表明，虽然HIIT方案省时，但在久坐不动的年轻人中，它们并不优于传统运动训练。要点：在未受过训练学生中稳态训练与HIIT效果相当；轻度间歇训练与稳态训练相比生理挑战非常相似；HIIT（尤其是非常高强度的变体）不如稳态或轻度间歇训练有趣；在为期8周的实验训练计划过程中，训练的喜爱程度会降低。
