Zhao Xuefeng, Lu Minying
Department of Physical Education, Putian University, Putian, China.
J Sports Sci Med. 2024 Dec 1;23(4):863-871. doi: 10.52082/jssm.2024.863. eCollection 2024 Dec.
This study compared inter-individual variability in the adaptive responses of cardiorespiratory fitness, anaerobic power, and motor abilities of male volleyball players to high-intensity interval training (HIIT) prescribed as repetitive drop jumps (interval jumping) and running-based intervals (interval running). Twenty-four collegiate volleyball players were equally randomized to two training groups executing 11 minutes of interval running or interval jumping during which they ran or repeated drop-jumps for 15 seconds, alternating with 15 seconds of passive recovery. Before and after the 6-week training period, aerobic fitness, cardiac function, and anaerobic power were evaluated using a graded exercise test, impedance cardiography, and a lower-body Wingate test, respectively. Additionally, linear speed, agility, and jumping tests determined motor abilities. Both interventions significantly enhanced maximum oxygen uptake (V̇O), velocity associated with V̇O, first and second ventilatory thresholds (VT & VT), maximal cardiac output (Q̇), stroke volume (SV), peak and average power output, vertical jump, change of direction, and linear sprint speed. Interval jumping group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in squat jump ( = 0.001; 95% CI: 2.51-5.42) and countermovement jump ( = 0.001; 95% CI: 2.11-4.61) compared to interval running group. Conversely, interval running group elicited a greater enhancement in sprint speed ( = 0.002; 95% CI: 2.53-5.71) than interval jumping group. Examining the individual residual in the adaptive responses revealed that interval running induced more homogenized adaptations across individuals in VT ( = 0.04; 95% CI: 0.03-1.33), Q̇ ( = 0.03; 95% CI: 0.04-1.64), SV ( = 0.04; 95% CI: 0.02-1.75), and maximal sprint speed ( = 0.01; 95% CI: 0.72-1.95) in contrast to interval jumping. However, the uniformity of adaptations in countermovement jump in response to interval jumping surpassed that of interval running ( = 0.02; 95% CI: 0.08-1.32). Although both training modalities effectively improved the mentioned variables concurrently, tailoring the HIIT intervention to the reference intensity and training modality specific for each quality may enhance measured quality.
本研究比较了男性排球运动员心肺适能、无氧功率和运动能力的适应性反应在个体间的差异，这些运动员进行了规定为重复深蹲跳（间歇跳跃）和基于跑步的间歇训练（间歇跑步）的高强度间歇训练（HIIT）。24名大学排球运动员被平均随机分为两个训练组，分别进行11分钟的间歇跑步或间歇跳跃训练，期间他们跑步或重复深蹲跳15秒，然后进行15秒的被动恢复。在为期6周的训练期前后，分别使用分级运动试验、阻抗心动图和下肢温盖特试验评估有氧适能、心功能和无氧功率。此外，通过直线速度、敏捷性和跳跃测试来测定运动能力。两种干预措施均显著提高了最大摄氧量（V̇O）、与V̇O相关的速度、第一和第二通气阈值（VT₁和VT₂）、最大心输出量（Q̇）、每搏输出量（SV）、峰值和平均功率输出、垂直跳跃、方向变化和直线冲刺速度。与间歇跑步组相比，间歇跳跃组的深蹲跳（P = 0.001；95%置信区间：2.51 - 5.42）和反向移动跳（P = 0.001；95%置信区间：2.11 - 4.61）有显著更大的改善。相反，间歇跑步组的冲刺速度提高幅度（P = 0.002；95%置信区间：2.53 - 5.71）大于间歇跳跃组。检查适应性反应中的个体残差发现，与间歇跳跃相比，间歇跑步在VT₁（P = 0.04；95%置信区间：0.03 - 1.33）、Q̇（P = 0.03；95%置信区间：0.04 - 1.64）、SV（P = 0.04；95%置信区间：0.02 - 1.75）和最大冲刺速度（P = 0.01；95%置信区间：0.72 - 1.95）方面引起个体间更均匀的适应。然而，间歇跳跃引起的反向移动跳适应的均匀性超过了间歇跑步（P = 0.02；95%置信区间：0.08 - 1.32）。虽然两种训练方式都有效地同时改善了上述变量，但根据每种素质的参考强度和训练方式来定制HIIT干预可能会提高测量的素质。
