Premium
Repeated Sprint Training in Hypoxia Improves Exercise Tolerance in Recreationally‐ Trained Men: A Randomized Single‐Blind Study
Author(s) -
Wang Ran,
Fukuda David H.,
La Monica Michael B.,
Starling Tristan M.,
Stout Jeffrey R.,
Hoffman Jay R.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.31.1_supplement.839.23
Subject(s) - sprint , respiratory compensation , medicine , repeated measures design , vo2 max , hypoxia (environmental) , analysis of variance , physical therapy , heart rate , cardiology , mathematics , anaerobic exercise , oxygen , statistics , blood pressure , chemistry , organic chemistry
Purpose As a novel altitude training approach, repeated sprint training in hypoxia (RSH) is based on repetition of “all‐out” efforts of short duration separated by incomplete recovery. Although several investigations have reported that RSH provides additional benefits when compared with the same training under normoxia (RSN), the data regarding the effect of RSH on exercise tolerance is limited. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of RSH on exercise tolerance in recreationally‐trained men. Methods Twenty‐six recreationally‐trained men (22.9 ± 3.1 y, 1.75 ± 0.76 m, 76.0 ± 9.3 kg) performed 8 sessions of repeated sprint training (each consisting of 3 sets of 5 × 10‐s sprints at a resistance of 7.5% of body mass, with 20‐s intervals of recovery) over 4 weeks (2 sessions per week) on a cycle ergometer either in normoxia (RSN, 300 m; FiO 2 = 20.9%; n = 13) or normobaric hypoxia (RSH, 3000 m; FiO 2 = 14.2%; n = 13). Anthropometry, graded exercise testing (GXT), repeated sprint testing (RST), and 3‐min all‐out critical power testing (3MT) was performed in normoxic conditions prior to and after completion of training. Changes in body composition, GXT peak power, maximal oxygen consumption (VO 2 max), respiratory compensation point (RCP), power output at RCP, mean power of all 5 sprints and the 5 th sprint in RST, 3MT critical power and total work between RSH and RSN were compared using one‐way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on post‐test values with pre‐test values serving as the covariate. Results No group differences were observed in body composition ( p = 0.502), GXT peak power ( p = 0.170), VO 2 max ( p = 0.124), and mean power of all 5 sprints in RST ( p = 0.151), while significantly greater mean power of the 5 th sprint in RST ( p = 0.036, 8.655 vs 8.209 W· kg −1 ), 3MT critical power ( p = 0.027, 2.829 vs 2.625 W· kg −1 ) and total work ( p = 0.011, 0.741 vs 0.706 kJ· kg −1 ) were detected in RSH as compared to RSN. Additionally, a significantly greater improvement was found only in RCP ( p = 0.019, 38.965 vs 36.173 ml· kg −1 · min −1 ) following RSH. Though not significant, a trend towards a greater improvement was noted in power output at RCP ( p = 0.076, 2.929 vs 2.806 W· kg −1 ). Conclusion The present findings demonstrate that greater improvement in exercise tolerance, together with enhanced working capacity, can be attained with RSH compared with RSN. Support or Funding Information This study was partially funded by a National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) International Collaboration Grant.