Ben-Ari Asaf, Silverman Yedidya, Obolski Uri, Halperin Israel
Department of Health Promotion, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Sylvan Adams Sports Institute, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Sports Med Open. 2025 Jan 14;11(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00803-8.
Studies on rest durations during high-intensity interval training (HIIT) often compare fixed and self-selected (SS) rest allocation approaches. Frequently, the rest duration under SS conditions is unlimited, leading to inconsistent total rest durations compared to fixed rest conditions. To address this limitation, we recently compared fixed and SS rest conditions during cycling HIIT sessions, while keeping the total rest duration equivalent. However, our protocol required athletes to divide a long total rest duration (720 s) across nine intervals, which may have been overly cognitively demanding. The current study aimed to explore the effects of the SS approach with a simplified rest allocation task on performance, physiological, and psychological outcomes.
Following a familiarization session, 24 professional female soccer players completed two running HIIT sessions on a non-motorized treadmill. Each session consisted of twelve 15 s intervals, divided into three blocks, with the goal of maximizing the distance covered. In both conditions, the between-interval rest duration per block amounted to 270 s. In the fixed condition, the rest was uniformly allocated to 90 s between each interval, whereas in the SS condition, the athletes chose how to allocate the entirety of the 270 s of rest. We compared the following outcomes: distance, heart rate, perception of fatigue, effort, autonomy, enjoyment, boredom, and athletes' preferences. Outcomes were compared using aggregated measures via paired univariate tests, and across the intervals via mixed-effects models.
We observed comparable results in most outcomes with the exception of higher autonomy (1-15 points) in the SS condition (mean difference = 2.1, 95%CI (0.9, 3.3) points) and a negligibly higher heart rate in the SS condition when comparing the observations across intervals (estimate = 2.5, 95%CI (0.9, 4.2) beats × min). Additionally, participants chose to rest for longer durations as the block progressed. Finally, the majority of participants (65%) favored the SS condition.
This study further solidifies that SS and fixed approaches with matched total rest durations result in similar performance, physiological, and psychological responses. This effect persists even when the total rest duration required to be allocated is relatively short. Therefore, coaches and trainees can choose either approach based on their preferences and training goals.
高强度间歇训练（HIIT）期间休息时长的研究通常会比较固定和自我选择（SS）的休息分配方式。在SS条件下，休息时长通常是无限制的，这导致与固定休息条件相比，总休息时长不一致。为解决这一局限性，我们最近在骑行HIIT训练中比较了固定和SS休息条件，同时保持总休息时长相等。然而，我们的方案要求运动员将较长的总休息时长（720秒）分配到九个间歇中，这可能对认知要求过高。本研究旨在探讨采用简化休息分配任务的SS方法对运动表现、生理和心理结果的影响。
在一次熟悉训练后，24名职业女子足球运动员在非电动跑步机上完成了两次跑步HIIT训练。每次训练包括十二个15秒的间歇，分为三个组块，目标是使跑过的距离最大化。在两种条件下，每个组块中间歇的休息时长均为270秒。在固定条件下，休息时间均匀分配为每个间歇之间90秒，而在SS条件下，运动员选择如何分配这270秒的全部休息时间。我们比较了以下结果：距离、心率、疲劳感、努力程度、自主性、愉悦感、无聊感以及运动员的偏好。通过配对单变量检验使用汇总测量比较结果，并通过混合效应模型在各间歇间进行比较。
我们观察到，除了在SS条件下自主性更高（1 - 15分）（平均差异 = 2.1，95%CI（0.9，3.3）分），以及在比较各间歇间的观察结果时SS条件下心率略高（估计值 = 2.5，95%CI（0.9，4.2）次/分钟）外，大多数结果相当。此外，随着组块的推进，参与者选择休息更长时间。最后，大多数参与者（65%）更喜欢SS条件。
本研究进一步证实，总休息时长匹配的SS和固定方法会导致相似的运动表现、生理和心理反应。即使需要分配的总休息时长相对较短，这种效果仍然存在。因此，教练和学员可以根据自己的偏好和训练目标选择任何一种方法。
