Overspeed HIIT in Lower-Body Positive Pressure Treadmill Improves Running Performance.

PURPOSE: Optimal high-intensity interval training (HIIT) regimens for running performance are unknown, although most protocols result in some benefit to key performance factors (running economy (RE), anaerobic threshold (AT), or maximal oxygen uptake (V˙O2max)). Lower-body positive pressure (LBPP) treadmills offer the unique possibility to partially unload runners and reach supramaximal speeds. We studied the use of LBPP to test an overspeed HIIT protocol in trained runners. METHODS: Eleven trained runners (35 ± 8 yr, V˙O2max, 55.7 ± 6.4 mL·kg·min) were randomized to an LBPP (n = 6) or a regular treadmill (CON, n = 5), eight sessions over 4 wk of HIIT program. Four to five intervals were run at 100% of velocity at V˙O2max (vV˙O2max) during 60% of time to exhaustion at vV˙O2max (Tlim) with a 1:1 work:recovery ratio. Performance outcomes were 2-mile track time trial, V˙O2max, vV˙O2max, vAT, Tlim, and RE. LBPP sessions were carried out at 90% body weight. RESULTS: Group-time effects were present for vV˙O2max (CON, 17.5 vs. 18.3, P = 0.03; LBPP, 19.7 vs. 22.3 km·h; P < 0.001) and Tlim (CON, 307.0 vs. 404.4 s, P = 0.28; LBPP, 444.5 vs. 855.5, P < 0.001). Simple main effects for time were present for field performance (CON, -18; LBPP, -25 s; P = 0.002), V˙O2max (CON, 57.6 vs. 59.6; LBPP, 54.1 vs. 55.1 mL·kg·min; P = 0.04) and submaximal HR (157.7 vs. 154.3 and 151.4 vs. 148.5 bpm; P = 0.002). RE was unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: A 4-wk HIIT protocol at 100% vV˙O2max improves field performance, vV˙O2max, V˙O2max and submaximal HR in trained runners. Improvements are similar if intervals are run on a regular treadmill or at higher speeds on a LPBB treadmill with 10% body weight reduction. LBPP could provide an alternative for taxing HIIT sessions.

Cycling Time Trial Is More Altered in Hypobaric than Normobaric Hypoxia

PURPOSE: Slight physiological differences between acute exposure in normobaric hypoxia (NH) and hypobaric hypoxia (HH) have been reported. Taken together, these differences suggest different physiological responses to hypoxic exposure to a simulated altitude (NH) versus a terrestrial altitude (HH). For this purpose, in the present study, we aimed to directly compare the time-trial performance after acute hypoxia exposure (26 h, 3450 min) by the same subjects under three different conditions: NH, HH, and normobaric normoxia (NN). Based on all of the preceding studies examining the differences among these hypoxic conditions, we hypothesized greater performance impairment in HH than in NH. METHODS: The experimental design consisted of three sessions: NN (Sion: FiO2, 20.93), NH (Sion, hypoxic room: FiO2, 13.6%; barometric pressure, 716 mm Hg), and HH (Jungfraujoch: FiO2, 20.93; barometric pressure, 481 mm Hg). The performance was evaluated at the end of each session with a cycle time trial of 250 kJ. RESULTS: The mean time trial duration in NN was significantly shorter than under the two hypoxic conditions (P < 0.001). In addition, the mean duration in NH was significantly shorter than that in HH (P < 0.01). The mean pulse oxygen saturation during the time trial was significantly lower for HH than for NH (P < 0.05), and it was significantly higher in NN than for the two other sessions (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: As previously suggested, HH seems to be a more stressful stimulus, and NH and HH should not be used interchangeability when endurance performance is the main objective. The principal factor in this performance difference between hypoxic conditions seemed to be the lower peripheral oxygen saturation in HH at rest, as well as during exercise.