Sindiani Mahmood, Eliakim Alon, Segev Daria, Meckel Yoav
a Life Science Department , Zinman College of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Wingate Institute , Netanya , Israel.
b Pediatric Department , Child Health and Sport Center, Meir Medical Center, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University , Tel Aviv , Israel.
Eur J Sport Sci. 2017 Aug;17(7):830-837. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2017.1321687. Epub 2017 May 9.
The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of an increasing-distance, interval-training programme and a decreasing-distance, interval-training programme, matched for total distance, on aerobic and anaerobic physiological indices. Forty physical education students were randomly assigned to either the increasing- or decreasing-distance, interval-training group (ITG and DTG), and completed two similar relevant sets of tests before and after six weeks of training. One training programme consisted of increasing-distance interval-training (100-200-300-400-500 m) and the other decreasing-distance interval training (500-400-300-200-100 m). While both training programmes led to a significant improvement in VO max (ES = 0.83-1.25), the improvement in the DTG was significantly greater than in the ITG (14.5 ± 3.6 vs. 7.8 ± 3.2%, p < .05). In addition, while both training programmes led to a significant improvement in all anaerobic indices (ES = 0.83-1.63), the improvements in peak power (15.7 ± 7.8 vs. 8.9 ± 4.7), mean power (10.6 ± 5.4 vs. 6.8 ± 4.4), and fatigue index (18.2 ± 10.9 vs. 7.0 ± 14.2) were significantly greater in the DTG compared to the ITG (p < .05). The main finding of the present study was that beyond the significant positive effects of both training programmes on aerobic and anaerobic fitness, the DTG showed significant superiority over the ITG in improving aerobic and anaerobic performance capabilities. Coaches and athletes should therefore be aware that, in spite of identical total work, an interval-training programme might induce different physiological impacts if the order of intervals is not identical.
本研究的目的是比较总距离匹配的递增距离间歇训练计划和递减距离间歇训练计划对有氧和无氧生理指标的影响。40名体育专业学生被随机分配到递增距离或递减距离间歇训练组（ITG和DTG），并在六周训练前后完成了两组相似的相关测试。一个训练计划包括递增距离间歇训练（100 - 200 - 300 - 400 - 500米），另一个是递减距离间歇训练（500 - 400 - 300 - 200 - 100米）。虽然两个训练计划都使最大摄氧量有显著提高（效应量ES = 0.83 - 1.25），但DTG组的提高显著大于ITG组（14.5 ± 3.6%对7.8 ± 3.2%，p < 0.05）。此外，虽然两个训练计划都使所有无氧指标有显著提高（效应量ES = 0.83 - 1.63），但DTG组在峰值功率（15.7 ± 7.8对8.9 ± 4.7）、平均功率（10.6 ± 5.4对6.8 ± 4.4）和疲劳指数（18.2 ± 10.9对7.0 ± 14.2）方面的提高显著大于ITG组（p < 0.05）。本研究的主要发现是，除了两个训练计划对有氧和无氧体能都有显著的积极影响外，DTG组在提高有氧和无氧运动能力方面明显优于ITG组。因此，教练和运动员应该意识到，尽管总运动量相同，但如果间歇顺序不同，间歇训练计划可能会产生不同的生理影响。
