10 or 30-s sprint interval training bouts enhance both aerobic and anaerobic performance

8/13/2019 10 or 30-s Sprint Interval Training Bouts Enhance Both Aerobic and Anaerobic Performance

1/8

O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E

10 or 30-s sprint interval training bouts enhance both aerobicand anaerobic performance

Tom J. Hazell Rebecca E. K. MacPherson

Braden M. R. Gravelle Peter W. R. Lemon

Accepted: 1 April 2010

Springer-Verlag 2010

Abstract We assessed whether 10-s sprint interval

training (SIT) bouts with 2 or 4 min recovery periods canimprove aerobic and anaerobic performance. Subjects

(n = 48) were assigned to one of four groups [exercise

time (s):recovery time (min)]: (1) 30:4, (2) 10:4, (3) 10:2 or

(4) control (no training). Training was cycling 3 week-1

for 2 weeks (starting with 4 bouts session-1, increasing 1

bout every 2 sessions, 6 total). Pre- and post-training

measures included: VO2max, 5-km time trial (TT), and a

30-s Wingate test. All groups were similar pre-training and

the control group did not change over time. The 10-s

groups trained at a higher intensity demonstrated by greater

(P\ 0.05) reproducibility of peak (10:4 = 96%; 10:2=

95% vs. 30:4 = 89%), average (10:4 = 84%; 10:2 = 82%

vs. 30:4 = 58%), and minimum power (10:4= 73%;

10:2 = 69%; vs. 30:4 = 40%) within each session while

the 30:4 group performed *2X (P\ 0.05) the total

work session-1 (83124 kJ, 46 bouts) versus 10:4 (38

58 kJ); 10:2 (3959 kJ). Training increased TT perfor-

mance (P\ 0.05) in the 30:4 (5.2%), 10:4 (3.5%), and

10:2 (3.0%) groups. VO2max increased in the 30:4 (9.3%)

and 10:4 (9.2%), but not the 10:2 group. Wingate peakpower kg-1 increased (P\ 0.05) in the 30:4 (9.5%), 10:4

(8.5%), and 10:2 (4.2%). Average Wingate power kg-1

increased (P\ 0.05) in the 30:4 (12.1%) and 10:4 (6.5%)

groups. These data indicate that 10-s (with either 2 or 4 min

recovery) and 30-s SIT bouts are effective for increasing

anaerobic and aerobic performance.

Keywords Endurance training Cycling VO2max

Time trial Wingate

Introduction

Recently, a novel type of high-intensity interval training

known as sprint interval training (SIT; 46 repeated

all-out 30-s efforts separated by 4 min recovery) has

demonstrated increases inVO2maxand aerobic performance

(230-km time trials; Burgomaster et al. 2006, 2007;

Gibala et al. 2006). Apparently, the repeated SIT bouts

stress many of the physiological/biochemical systems used

in aerobic efforts (Daniels and Scardina1984; Laursen and

Jenkins 2002). Further, SIT also induces alterations in

glycolytic enzymes, muscle buffering, and ionic regulation

resulting in improved anaerobic performance (Burgomaster

et al. 2005,2006,2007; Gibala et al. 2006; Harmer et al.

2000; MacDougall et al. 1998; Stathis et al. 1994).

Individual SIT bouts are characterized by a peak power

output in the first 510 s followed by a precipitous decline

over the remaining 2025 s. Although clearly these kinds

of efforts represent a powerful training stimulus, whether

the mechanism responsible is the first 10 s (generation of

peak power), the entire 30 s (attempted maintenance of a

high power output), or the length of the recovery period

Communicated by Susan Ward.

T. J. Hazell (&) R. E. K. MacPherson

B. M. R. Gravelle P. W. R. Lemon

Exercise Nutrition Research Laboratory,Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Kinesiology,

2235 3M Centre, The University of Western Ontario,

London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada

e-mail: [email protected]

R. E. K. MacPherson


B. M. R. Gravelle


P. W. R. Lemon


1 3

Eur J Appl Physiol

DOI 10.1007/s00421-010-1474-y


2/8

between repeats is unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this

study was to compare the established, effective SIT pro-

tocol (30 s all-out efforts with 4 min recovery) versus

two modified types of SIT (10 s all-out efforts with

either 4 min or 2 min recovery) on both aerobic and

anaerobic performance. We hypothesized that the peak

power generation is most important and, therefore, the 10 s

efforts would be effective.

Methods

Subjects

Forty-eight young adults (26 kinesiology students, 19

ultimate Frisbee players, and 3 other physically active

individuals; 35 men and 13 women) volunteered to par-

ticipate (24 3.2 years, 173 9.3 cm, 74 13.7 kg,

17 8.1% body fat, 47 6.7 ml kg

-1

min

-1

). Prior toany participation, the experimental procedures and poten-

tial risks were explained fully to the subjects and all pro-

vided written informed consent. They were healthy as

assessed by the PAR-Q health questionnaire (Thomas et al.

1992) and, although all were physically active, none were

currently involved in an exercise training program nor had

they been for at least 4 months prior to the study. Dietary

and physical activity patterns were maintained throughout

the study and no alcohol, caffeine, or exercise was allowed

for 24 h before each testing or training session. Participants

were matched into four groups based on the sex, time trial

performance, andVO2max. This study was approved by theUniversity of Western Ontario Ethics Committee for

Research on Human Subjects.

Study design

Participants completed 2-weeks of cycle training (3 ses-

sion week-1) in one of the three SIT groups while the

control group did not train. Pre- and post- the 2 week

intervention, each completed tests for body composition,

VO2max, anaerobic power (30-s Wingate), and 5-km cycling

time trial performance (see details below). All tests were

separated by at least 24 h and to standardize recovery, post-testing occurred within 7296 h of the final training

session.

Pre-experimental procedures

Prior to any baseline testing, all participants attended a

laboratory familiarization visit to introduce the testing/

training procedures and also to ensure that any learning

effect was minimal for the baseline measures.

Baseline testing

All exercise tests were performed at the same time of day

on separate days, separated by at least 24 h, and at least

24 h prior to any training. Baseline testing was performed

in the same order for all subjects and consisted of four

measures.

1. VO2max test: An incremental test to exhaustion on an

electronically braked cycle ergometer (Ergo-metrics

800 s, SensorMedics, CA, USA) was utilized to

determine VO2max using an online breath by breath

gas collection system (Vmax Legacy, Sensor Medics,

CA, USA). Briefly, following a 5 min warm-up at

50 W, the test began at a workload of 20 W with the

workload increasing 25 W every minute for males

(5 W every 12 s) and 20 W every minute for females

(5 W every 15 s). VO2max was taken as the highest

value averaged over 30-s collection periods; 43 of 48

subjects reached a plateau in VO2 (\

50% of theexpected increase for the workload). The other five

subjects attained a max HR[ 91% of the age

predicted max (190 8 bpm), an RER[ 1.1, and a

VO2 increase of 6595% of predicted for the increase

in workload. Prior to testing, the analyzers were

calibrated with gases of known concentration and

volumes with a 3-l syringe.

2. 5-km time trial: A 5-km time trial on a customized

cycle ergometer interfaced with a computerized,

virtual road race course (CompuTrainer) was used

to assess exercise performance. Participants received

instantaneous feedback throughout the 5-km race via acomputer video image of themselves and a competitor

programmed to complete their baseline performance.

In addition to the video images of both riders, previous

best time, time elapsed, current speed, and distance

ahead/behind (m) of the competitor was available on

the monitor. This feedback was provided to ensure

maximum motivation for the entire time trial. The time

trial was completed on three separate occasions prior

to any training to minimize learning and/or the effect

of day to day variability. The mean of the two fastest

efforts was used as the baseline performance time.

3. Wingate anaerobic cycle test: A 30-s Wingate anaer-obic cycle test using a mechanically braked cycle

ergometer (model 814E bicycle ergometer, Monark,

Stockholm, Sweden) against a resistance equaling

100 g kg-1 body mass. Instructions to begin pedaling

as fast as possible against the inertial resistance of the

ergometer were given and the appropriate load was

applied instantaneously (within 3 s). Verbal encour-

agement was provided for the remainder of the 30-s

test. Peak power (highest power output over any 5-s

Eur J Appl Physiol

1 3


3/8

period) and average power (over the entire effort) were

determined using an online data-acquisition system

(Monark Wingate Ergometer Test, Monark Body

Guard, AB, Version 1.0).

4. Body composition analysis: Body composition (lean

mass and fat mass) was determined by whole body

densitometry (BodPod, Life Measurements, Concord,

CA) as previously described (Dempster and Aitkens1995; Noreen and Lemon 2006). Briefly, participants

wore approved clothing, i.e., tight swimsuit or com-

pression shorts, Lycra cap, and for the women, a

sports bra, were weighed, sat in an air tight chamber

for several determinations, a predictive equation

integral to the BodPod software was used to estimate

thoracic gas volume, and the attained value for body

density was used in the Siri equation to estimate body

composition (Siri1961).

Training

After the baseline procedures, participants were assigned to

one of the three training groups (30-s exercise:4 min

recovery, 10 s:4 min, 10 s:2 min) or the control group (C)

based on their time trial performance, VO2max, and sex.

Training commenced *48 h after their third baseline

performance test and consisted of three training sessions

per week over 2 weeks with 4872 h recovery between

training sessions. All training was completed using a load

of 100 g kg body mass-1.

Group 30 s:4 min: Performed repeated, 30 s all-out

efforts separated by 4 min of active recovery (unloaded

cycling) similar to previous studies (Burgomaster et al.

2008; Gibala et al. 2006).



cycling).



cycling).

Training progression was accomplished by increasing

the number of repeats from four repetitions during the first

two training sessions, to five repetitions during the middletwo training sessions, and then to six repetitions for the

final two training sessions as has been done previously

(Gibala et al. 2006).

Reproducibility of power measures within a training

session

To quantify the training intensity of each group the peak

power output of each sprint bout per training session were

summed, averaged, divided by the greatest peak power

output during all training sessions and expressed as a percent

([peak power 1 ? peak power 2 ? peak power 3? peak

power 6/6]/highest peak9 100). Similarly, average and

minimum power output during the training sessions were

determined for all groups. Finally, total work performed

during each training session was calculated (average power

output 9 time) for all three training groups.

Post-training testing

Post-training measures were identical to the baseline testing

andcompleted within4896 h after thefinal training session.

Statistics

Statistical analyses were performed using Sigma Stat for

Windows (Version 3.5). After testing for normality and

variance homogeneity, two-way (treatment 9 time) repe-

ated measures ANOVA were used to test significanceamong groups pre- and post-training, with Tukeys post

hoc testing, where necessary. One-way ANOVA were also

used to test for significant differences in training intensities

(reproducibility of peak power output, average power

output, and total work output) among groups. The signifi-

cance level was set at P\0.05. All data are presented as

mean standard deviation (SD).

Results

Time trial

The 5-km cycling time trial was completed in approxi-

mately 9.5 min for all groups at baseline (P = 0.620). All

three training groups improved their time trial performance

significantly over the 2-weeks of exercise (Fig.1);

30 s:4 min improved by 5.2% (-28.9 s; P\ 0.001),

10 s:4 min by 3.5% (-19.8 s; P = 0.003), and 10 s:2 min

group by 3.0% (-15.7 s; P = 0.022). None of these per-

formance gains were significantly different among training

groups. As expected, the control group showed no change

(from 588 118 to 587 116 s; P = 0.862).

VO2max

There was no significant difference in the baseline values

among groups (P = 0.627) but there was a significant inter-

action with time (training group versus time; P = 0.015;

Fig. 2). VO2max increased 9.3% (4.3 ml kg-1 min-1; P\

0.001) in the30 s:4 min groupand 9.2% (4.5 ml kg-1 min-1;

P\0.001) in the 10 s:4 min group. In the 10 s:2 min group,

the increase in VO2max approached statistical significance

Eur J Appl Physiol

1 3


4/8

(3.8%; 1.8 ml kg-1 min-1; P = 0.06). There were no sig-

nificant differences among training groups. The control

group showed no change in VO2max (from 45.2 4.6 to

45.3 3.5 ml kg-1 min-1;P = 0.899).

Relative peak power output

There was no significant difference in baseline relative peak

power output among groups (P = 0.437), but there was a

significant interaction with time (training group vs. time;

P = 0.017; Fig.3). The 30 s:4 min group increased 9.5%

(1.3 W kg-1; P\ 0.001), the 10 s:4 min group increased

8.5% (1.3 W kg-1;P\ 0.001) while the 10 s:2 min group

improved 4.2% (0.6 W kg-1; P = 0.029). None of these

observed group gains were significantly different from each

other. The control group showed no change (14.2 1.9 to

14.2 1.6 W kg-1;P = 0.959).

Relative average power output

Baseline relative average power output values were similaramong groups (P = 0.383) and there was a significant

interaction with time (training group vs. time; P = 0.002;

Fig. 4). The 30 s:4 min group improved 12.1% (1.0 W kg-1;

P\ 0.001) and the 10 s:4 min group increased 6.5%

(0.6 W kg-1; P = 0.003). The observed increase in the

10 s:2 min group (2.9%; 0.3 W kg-1) failed to reach

statistical significance (P = 0.136). None of these changes

were significantly different from each other. Again, the

control group showed no change (9.5 1.2 to 9.3

1.1 W kg-1; P = 0.510).

Reproducibility of power outputs during training

sessions

There was a significant difference in the ability of the

training groups to maintain peak power output during the

training sessions (P\0.001; Fig.5). The 10 s:4 min

group maintained 96% of their peak power output and the

10 s:2 min group 95% which were both significantly

greater (P\ 0.001) than the 89% observed for the

30 s:4 min group.

5 km Time Trial Performance (sec)

0

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

***

*

0 2 weeks0 2 weeks0 2 weeks0 2 weeks

30:4 10:4 10:2 CONTROL

Fig. 1 5-km cycling time trial performance (s) before and after

2 weeks of training. Thin lines are individual data and the thick lines

are means. All training groups improved significantly while the

control group did not change. **P\ 0.001, *P\0.03

0

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

VO2max (mlkg-1

min-1

)

****


30:4 10:4 10:2 CONTROL

Fig. 2 VO2max(ml kg-1 min-1) before and after 2 weeks of training.

Thin lines represent individual data and the thick lines are means.

Both the 30:4 and 10:4 training groups improved significantly while

the 10:2 approached significance. The control group did not change.

**P\ 0.001, P = 0.06

Relative Peak Power Output (Wkg-1)

0

10

12

14

16

18

20

** ** *


30:4 10:4 10:2 CONTROL

Fig. 3 Wingate relative peak power output (W kg-1) before and after

2 weeks of training. Thin lines are individual data and the thick lines

are means. All training groups improved significantly while thecontrol group did not change. **P\ 0.001, *P\0.03

Eur J Appl Physiol

1 3


5/8

Similarly, there was a significant difference in the ability

of the training groups to maintain average power output

during training sessions (P\ 0.001; Fig.5). The

10 s:4 min group and 10 s:2 min group maintained 84 and

82% of their peak power output, respectively, which were

both significantly greater (P\ 0.001) than the 58%

observed for the 30 s:4 min group.

As with both peak and average power output, there was

a significant difference in the minimum power output

observed during the training sessions (P\0.001; Fig. 5).

Minimum power output for the 10 s:4 min group and

10 s:2 min group was 73 and 69% of their peak power

output, respectively. Both were significantly greater

(P\ 0.001) than the 40% for the 30 s:4 min group.

Total work performed also differed among training

groups (P = 0.005). As expected, the 30 s:4 min group

(83124 kJ) performed significantly more total work

(P\ 0.009) during the 46 bouts per training session thaneither the 10 s:4 min group (3858 kJ) or the 10 s:2 min

group (3959 kJ). There was no difference in total work

performed between the 10 s:4 min and the 10 s:2 min

groups (P = 0.999).

Body composition

Baseline values for body composition (body mass, lean

mass, fat mass, body fat percentage) were similar among

groups (P[ 0.430). Training did not cause changes in

body composition (P[0.490) and, as expected, there were

no body composition changes in the control group(P C 0.626).

Discussion

Recent studies utilizing SIT (repeated maximal 30-s efforts

with 4 min recovery) have reported significant increases in

both anaerobic and aerobic power (Gibala and McGee

2008). Increases in glycolytic (MacDougall et al.1998) and

oxidative enzymes activity (Burgomaster et al.2005,2006,

2007; MacDougall et al. 1998), muscle buffering capacity

(Burgomaster et al.2007; Gibala et al.2006), and/or ionic

regulation (Harmer et al. 2000) have been implicated in

these responses. Moreover, it has been demonstrated

that SIT up-regulates peroxisome proliferator-activated

receptor-co-activator-1a (PGC-1a), a potent regulator of

mitochondrial biogenesis (Burgomaster et al. 2008; Gibala

et al. 2009), which could be the underlying mechanism

responsible for the observed aerobic adaptation. This

information is exciting because it means that such adap-

tations can be obtained with a substantial reduction

in exercise training time. Consequently, many types of

athletes and perhaps even non-athletes interested in being

physically active for health reasons can benefit from this

novel type of training. However, not much is known

regarding which particular aspect of SIT provides this

powerful stimulus. The purpose of the current study was to

determine whether the observed improvements in anaero-

bic and aerobic performance are due to the generation of

peak power output, the total work completed over 30 s,

and/or the brief recovery interval. If the peak power output

generation is most important we would expect that the

two-10 s treatments would produce similar or greater

Relative Average Power Output (Wkg -1)

0

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

** *


30:4 10:4 10:2 CONTROL

Fig. 4 Wingate relative average power output (W kg-1) before and

after 2 weeks of training. Thin lines are individual data and the thick

lines are means. Both the 30:4 and 10:4 training groups improved

significantly while the 10:2 and the control group did not change.

**P\ 0.001, *P\0.03

40

60

80

100

40

60

80

100

Training Session

Peak Power

Output (%)

Training Session

Average Power

Output (%)

Training Session

Minumum Power

Output (%)

**

**

**

30:4 10:4 10:2 30:4 10:4 10 :2 30: 4 1 0: 4 10 :2

Fig. 5 Reproducibility of peak, average, and minimum power during

the training sessions. The 30 s:4 min maintained significantly less

peak, average, and minimum power than the 10 s:4 min and

10 s:2 min training groups. Data are mean SD. **P\ 0.001

Eur J Appl Physiol

1 3


6/8

improvements versus the 30 s protocol because, of course,

the peak power occurs during the first 5 or 10 s of SIT. On

the other hand, if the average power output (or total work

completed) over the 30 s is critical then the 30-s treatment

should be best. Finally, if the intersession recovery interval

is a key factor then the 210 s treatments (with 2 vs. 4 min

recovery interval) should produce different results.

Our results demonstrate that both modified SIT proto-cols (10 s:4 min and 10 s:2 min) produced similar and

significant VO2max and 5-km time trial performance

improvements when compared with the established

30 s:4 min SIT protocol. This suggests that the generation

of peak power output during the first few seconds of each

training bout is more likely responsible for the SIT adap-

tations than the total work completed.

As expected, the training session peak power genera-

tion (% of peak power over each training repeat) was

more reproducible (P\ 0.05) with both 10-s groups

versus the 30-s group (96 and 95 vs. 89%). Further, both

average power (84, 82 vs. 58%) and minimum power(73, 69 vs. 40%) over each training repeat were greater

(P\ 0.05) with the 10-s groups versus the 30 s. As a

result, the 10-s groups did *50% of the work completed

in the 30-s group in only 33% of the training time. In

other words, the 10-s groups exercised for less time, but

at greater exercise intensity. Finally, although we did not

quantify the effort involved, subjectively the participants

appeared to find the 10 s efforts less difficult and their

comments during training were consistent with this

possibility. Taken together, these data suggest that,

although the 30 s:4 min SIT is very time efficient versus

more traditional endurance training, significant perfor-

mance gains are possible with an even smaller time

commitment. This may be very useful for athletes who

need to boost their performance over the course of their

competitive season when fitness might suffer due to

increased emphasis on skill development.

The observed improvements in time trial performance

(35%), VO2max (49%), peak power output (910%), and

average power output (712%) are consistent with other

SIT studies utilizing the established 30 s:4 min protocol

(Barnett et al. 2004; Burgomaster et al.2006,2007,2008;

Gibala et al. 2006; MacDougall et al. 1998; Stathis et al.

1994). Of course, these increases in both aerobic and

anaerobic power are likely responsible for the observed

improvements in time trial performance.

Some may be surprised by the aerobic adaptations

observed with such short exercise bouts, but when one

examines the response of the muscles involved with SIT

more closely our results are much more reasonable, even

expected. Specifically, the well-known precipitous decline

in peak power output during SIT type exercise is due to the

fall in muscle PCr stores primarily (Bogdanis et al. 1995,

1996). Further, the decrease in PCr availability combined

with the continued attempt to generate maximal power

should stimulate both glycolysis and oxidative phosphor-

ylation with the later becoming even more pronounced

during successive bouts (McCartney et al. 1986; Spriet

et al. 1989). Likely this coupling of PCr hydrolysis and

oxidative metabolism explains at least partially why both

the 10 and 30-s training efforts present a significant acutechallenge to the mitochondria resulting in adaptation. In

addition, about 50 years ago, Astrand et al. (1960a, b)

suggested that oxygen availability from myoglobin should

be reduced with continuous versus intermittent exercise at

the same relative intensity because with the latter it would

be reloaded during recovery. If so, the relative proportion

of energy regenerated from glycolysis and oxidative

phosphorylation would be altered with longer exercise

bouts even if the intensity was identical, i.e., more gly-

colysis with continuous exercise. This reloading of myo-

globin with oxygen phenomenon could also contribute to

the aerobic improvement observed with all three types ofSIT studied because 24 min of recovery should be plenty

of time to reload. Moreover, the unloading of myoglobin in

the 30-s SIT group would be expected to contribute to a

greater glycolytic involvement versus the 10-s groups.

Interestingly, although training increased Wingate peak

power output in all three SIT groups, average Wingate

power output tended to be greater with the 30 s:4 min

versus the 10 s:4 min group (11.4 vs. 7.6%) and was not

significantly increased with training in the 10 s:2 min

group (2.9%). This result is consistent with a greater reli-

ance on glycolysis during training in the 30-s group and

could explain at least partially why the more intense 10-s

repeats seemed less difficult.

With respect to recovery duration, our similar across

group performance gains over 2 weeks of training and

greater peak power reproducibility with training repeats in

the 10-s groups indicate that two min of recovery is

sufficient for the next all-out effort. From a practical

perspective, this suggests that total training time can be

reduced versus even 30 s:4 min SIT without compromising

training adaptations. In this study, we did not test 30-s

efforts with 2 min recovery and this should be assessed to

be certain that intensity can be maintained in subsequent

bouts. However, 50% reduction in recovery time might

also be appropriate with 30-s SIT because despite the larger

oxygen debt incurred versus 10-s efforts we have observed

that VO2 recovers consistently by *80% as quickly as

120 s following a typical SIT session (4 repeat 30-s efforts;

unpublished observations). Perhaps, the incomplete

recoveries which characterize SIT contribute to the aerobic

adaptation of the muscle because it is forced to regenerate

energy at a very high rate with a decreasing anaerobic

contribution (Barnett et al. 2004).

Eur J Appl Physiol

1 3


7/8

The results of the current study agree with earlier work

demonstrating the effectiveness of 30 s:4 min SIT relative

to aerobic and anaerobic adaptations. However, of sub-

stantial interest is our observation that many of the same

performance gains occurred in our two modified SIT pro-

tocols, 10-s efforts with either 2 or 4 min recovery in which

actual time exercising was reduced by 67% and, for the

10 s:2 min group, recovery time was reduced by another50%. This means that for the 10 s:2 min group training

total time would be as little as \711 versus 14

23 min day-1 for 30 s:4 min or 3060 min day-1 for

traditional continuous endurance training. As a result SIT

should be easily incorporated into the training program of

any athlete desiring to increase both aerobic and anaerobic

power quickly. However, it is still unclear how these

modified 10-s SIT protocols would compare to traditional

ET over longer training programs. Moreover, at least over

2 weeks SIT had no effect on body composition in these

recreationally active young individuals so longer training

durations are needed to determine the effectiveness of theseSIT protocols on body composition.

Recently, interval training for non-athletes, even those

with compromised cardiovascular function has been utilized

with considerable success (Rognmo et al.2004; Warburton

et al. 2005; Wisloff et al. 2007), but it is important to

appreciate that SIT is considerably more intense. Conse-

quently, before SIT is adopted widely by non-athletes more

study is necessary to determine whether there are health

concerns with this type of training in other populations.

Conclusion

The present study demonstrates that SIT protocols using

46 repetitions of 10-s duration with 2 or 4 min of

recovery, three times per week over as brief a time period

as 2 weeks can increase VO2max, peak Wingate power

output, and 5-km cycle time trial performance. While the

underlying mechanism responsible for these rapid adapta-

tions must await further study the fact that bouts of 10-s

were as effective as 30-s suggests that the main stimulus of

SIT is the generation of peak power output.

References

Astrand I, Astrand PO, Christensen EH, Hedman R (1960a)

Intermittent muscular work. Acta Physiol Scand 48:448453

Astrand I, Astrand PO, Christensen EH, Hedman R (1960b)

Myohemoglobin as an oxygen-store in man. Acta Physiol Scand

48:454460

Barnett C, Carey M, Proietto J, Cerin E, Febbraio MA, Jenkins D

(2004) Muscle metabolism during sprint exercise in man:

influence of sprint training. J Sci Med Sport 7:314322

Bogdanis GC, Nevill ME, Boobis LH, Lakomy HK, Nevill AM

(1995) Recovery of power output and muscle metabolites

following 30 s of maximal sprint cycling in man. J Physiol

482(Pt 2):467480

Bogdanis GC, Nevill ME, Boobis LH, Lakomy HK (1996) Contribu-

tion of phosphocreatine and aerobic metabolism to energy supply

during repeated sprint exercise. J Appl Physiol 80:876884

Burgomaster KA, Hughes SC, Heigenhauser GJ, Bradwell SN, Gibala

MJ (2005) Six sessions of sprint interval training increases

muscle oxidative potential and cycle endurance capacity in

humans. J Appl Physiol 98:19851990

Burgomaster KA, Heigenhauser GJ, Gibala MJ (2006) Effect of short-

term sprint interval training on human skeletal muscle carbohy-

drate metabolism during exercise and time-trial performance. J

Appl Physiol 100:20412047

Burgomaster KA, Cermak NM, Phillips SM, Benton CR, Bonen A,

Gibala MJ (2007) Divergent response of metabolite transport

proteins in human skeletal muscle after sprint interval training

and detraining. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol

292:R1970R1976

Burgomaster KA, Howarth KR, Phillips SM et al (2008) Similar

metabolic adaptations during exercise after low volume sprint

interval and traditional endurance training in humans. J Physiol

586:151160

Daniels J, Scardina N (1984) Interval training and performance.

Sports Med 1:327334

Dempster P, Aitkens S (1995) A new air displacement method for the

determination of human body composition. Med Sci Sports

Exerc 27:16921697

Gibala MJ, McGee SL (2008) Metabolic adaptations to short-term

high-intensity interval training: a little pain for a lot of gain?

Exerc Sport Sci Rev 36:5863

Gibala MJ, Little JP, van Essen M et al (2006) Short-term sprint

interval versus traditional endurance training: similar initial

adaptations in human skeletal muscle and exercise performance.

J Physiol 575:901911

Gibala MJ, McGee SL, Garnham AP, Howlett KF, Snow RJ,

Hargreaves M (2009) Brief intense interval exercise activates

AMPK and p38 MAPK signaling and increases the expression of

PGC-1alpha in human skeletal muscle. J Appl Physiol 106:929

934

Harmer AR, McKenna MJ, Sutton JR et al (2000) Skeletal muscle

metabolic and ionic adaptations during intense exercise follow-

ing sprint training in humans. J Appl Physiol 89:17931803

Laursen PB, Jenkins DG (2002) The scientific basis for high-intensity

interval training: optimising training programmes and maximis-

ing performance in highly trained endurance athletes. Sports

Med 32:5373

MacDougall JD, Hicks AL, MacDonald JR, McKelvie RS, Green HJ,

Smith KM (1998) Muscle performance and enzymatic adapta-

tions to sprint interval training. J Appl Physiol 84:21382142

McCartney N, Spriet LL, Heigenhauser GJ, Kowalchuk JM, Sutton

JR, Jones NL (1986) Muscle power and metabolism in maximal

intermittent exercise. J Appl Physiol 60:11641169Noreen EE, Lemon PW (2006) Reliability of air displacement

plethysmography in a large, heterogeneous sample. Med Sci

Sports Exerc 38:15051509

Rognmo O, Hetland E, Helgerud J, Hoff J, Slordahl SA (2004) High

intensity aerobic interval exercise is superior to moderate

intensity exercise for increasing aerobic capacity in patients

with coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil

11:216222

Siri WE (1961) Body composition from fluid spaces and density:

analysis of methods. In: Brozek J, Henschel A (eds) Techniques

for measuring body composition. National Research Council

Education, National Academy Sciences, Washington, DC

Eur J Appl Physiol

1 3


8/8

Spriet LL, Lindinger MI, McKelvie RS, Heigenhauser GJ, Jones NL

(1989) Muscle glycogenolysis and H? concentration during

maximal intermittent cycling. J Appl Physiol 66:813

Stathis CG, Febbraio MA, Carey MF, Snow RJ (1994) Influence of

sprint training on human skeletal muscle purine nucleotide

metabolism. J Appl Physiol 76:18021809

Thomas S, Reading J, Shephard RJ (1992) Revision of the Physical

Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q). Can J Sport Sci

17:338345

Warburton DE, McKenzie DC, Haykowsky MJ et al (2005) Effec-

tiveness of high-intensity interval training for the rehabilitation

of patients with coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 95:1080

1084

Wisloff U, Stoylen A, Loennechen JP et al (2007) Superior

cardiovascular effect of aerobic interval training versus moderate

continuous training in heart failure patients: a randomized study.

Circulation 115:30863094

Eur J Appl Physiol

1 3

10 or 30-s sprint interval training bouts enhance both aerobic and anaerobic performance

Documents