Held Steffen, Isenmann Eduard, Rappelt Ludwig, Wiedenmann Tim, Kutschki Dominic, Harbrecht Jannik, Kirchner Katrin, Geisler Stephan, Donath Lars
Department of Sport and Management, IST University of Applied Sciences, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Department of Intervention Research in Exercise Training, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Front Physiol. 2024 Nov 15;15:1446837. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2024.1446837. eCollection 2024.
High-intensity functional interval training (HIFT) is predominantly composed of high exercise training intensities (HiT) and loads. Both have been linked to a higher risk of overtraining and injuries in inexperienced populations. A polarized training approach is characterized by high amounts of low-intensity training (LiT) and only approximately 5%-20% HiT. Compared to HIT-based training, this approach can result in temporary training load and intensity reductions without diminishing training gains. Thus, we aimed to examine the effects of traditional (TRAD) HIFT vs. polarized (POL) HIFT on relevant performance parameters.
Thirty athletes (15 females, age: 26.6 ± 5.0 years, height: 1.76 ± 0.13 m, body mass: 79.6 ± 12.4 kg, prior experience: 2.3 ± 2.0 years, training volume: 6.1 ± 2.4 h/wk) were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of either POL (78% LiT, 22% threshold intensity training (ThT) to HiT) or TRAD (26% LiT, 74% ThT to HiT). HIFT performance testing focused on maximal strength (squat: SQ1RM, deadlift: DL1RM, overhead press: OHP1RM, high pull: HP1RM), endurance (peak oxygen uptake: V̇Opeak, lactate threshold: LT, peak power output (PPO), and benchmark HIFT workout (Jackie: 1000 m rowing, 50 thrusters, and 30 pull-ups for time).
POL (785 ± 71 au) completed significantly ( ≤ 0.001; SMD = 4.55) lower training load (eTRIMP) than TRAD (1,273 ± 126 au). rANCOVA revealed no statistical relevant group×time interaction effects (0.094 ≤ ≤ 0.986; 0.00 ≤ η ≤ 0.09) for SQ1RM, DL1RM, OHP1RM, high pull, V̇O2peak, LT, PPO, and Jackie performance. Both groups revealed trivial to moderate but significant (rANCOVA time effects: ≤ 0.02; 0.01 ≤ η ≤ 0.11; 0.00 ≤ SMD ≤ 0.65) performance gains regarding DL1RM, OHP1RM, HP1RM, and Jackie.
Despite a notably lower total training load, conditioning gains were not affected by a polarized functional interval training regimen.
高强度功能性间歇训练（HIFT）主要由高强度运动训练强度（HiT）和负荷组成。在缺乏经验的人群中，这两者都与过度训练和受伤的较高风险相关。一种极化训练方法的特点是大量的低强度训练（LiT），且只有约5%-20%的HiT。与基于高强度间歇训练（HIT）的训练相比，这种方法可导致训练负荷和强度暂时降低，同时不会减少训练收益。因此，我们旨在研究传统（TRAD）HIFT与极化（POL）HIFT对相关性能参数的影响。
30名运动员（15名女性，年龄：(26.6\pm5.0)岁，身高：(1.76\pm0.13)米，体重：(79.6\pm12.4)千克，既往经验：(2.3\pm2.0)年，训练量：(6.1\pm2.4)小时/周）被随机分配接受为期6周的POL训练（78% LiT，22%阈值强度训练（ThT）至HiT）或TRAD训练（26% LiT，74% ThT至HiT）。HIFT性能测试集中在最大力量（深蹲：SQ1RM，硬拉：DL1RM，卧推：OHP1RM，高翻：HP1RM）、耐力（峰值摄氧量：(\dot{V}O_{peak})，乳酸阈值：LT，峰值功率输出（PPO））以及基准HIFT训练（杰基：1000米划船、50次箭步蹲和30次引体向上计时）。
POL组（785±71任意单位）完成的训练负荷（eTRIMP）显著低于TRAD组（1273±126任意单位）（(P\leq0.001)；标准化均值差（SMD）=4.55）。重复测量方差分析显示，对于SQ1RM、DL1RM、OHP1RM、高翻、(\dot{V}O_{2peak})、LT、PPO和杰基训练的表现，不存在统计学上相关的组×时间交互效应（(0.094\leq P\leq0.986)；(0.00\leq\eta^{2}\leq0.09)）。两组在DL1RM、OHP1RM、HP1RM和杰基训练方面均显示出从微不足道到中等程度但显著的（重复测量方差分析时间效应：(P\leq0.02)；(0.01\leq\eta^{2}\leq0.11)；(0.00\leq SMD\leq0.6)5）表现提升。
尽管总训练负荷显著较低，但极化功能性间歇训练方案并未影响体能提升。
