Search

Purpose: High-intensity functional interval training (HIFT) is predominantly composed of high exercise training intensities (HiT) and loads. Both have been linked to a higher risk of overtraining and injuries in inexperienced populations. A polarized training approach is characterized by high amounts of low-intensity training (LiT) and only approximately 5%–20% HiT. Compared to HIT-based training, this approach can result in temporary training load and intensity reductions without diminishing training gains. Thus, we aimed to examine the effects of traditional (TRAD) HIFT vs. polarized (POL) HIFT on relevant performance parameters. Methods: Thirty athletes (15 females, age: 26.6 ± 5.0 years, height: 1.76 ± 0.13 m, body mass: 79.6 ± 12.4 kg, prior experience: 2.3 ± 2.0 years, training volume: 6.1 ± 2.4 h/wk) were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of either POL (78% LiT, 22% threshold intensity training (ThT) to HiT) or TRAD (26% LiT, 74% ThT to HiT). HIFT performance testing focused on maximal strength (squat: SQ1RM, deadlift: DL1RM, overhead press: OHP1RM, high pull: HP1RM), endurance (peak oxygen uptake: V̇O2peak, lactate threshold: LT, peak power output (PPO), and benchmark HIFT workout (Jackie: 1000 m rowing, 50 thrusters, and 30 pull-ups for time). Results: POL (785 ± 71 au) completed significantly (p ≤ 0.001; SMD = 4.55) lower training load (eTRIMP) than TRAD (1,273 ± 126 au). rANCOVA revealed no statistical relevant group×time interaction effects (0.094 ≤ p ≤ 0.986; 0.00 ≤ ηp2 ≤ 0.09) for SQ1RM, DL1RM, OHP1RM, high pull, V̇O2peak, LT, PPO, and Jackie performance. Both groups revealed trivial to moderate but significant (rANCOVA time effects: p ≤ 0.02; 0.01 ≤ ηp2 ≤ 0.11; 0.00 ≤ SMD ≤ 0.65) performance gains regarding DL1RM, OHP1RM, HP1RM, and Jackie. Conclusion: Despite a notably lower total training load, conditioning gains were not affected by a polarized functional interval training regimen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) cannot be clearly distinguished from and may be explained in large by warm-up effects. To disentangle PAPE from a systemic warm-up effect, we conducted three randomized crossover trials (RCT). Methods: Each RCT consisted of a familiarization/one-repetition-maximum (1RM) assessment session followed by two interventional sessions (random order). In Study I, 18 participants (age: 26 ± 4 years; height: 1.84 ± 0.06 m; mass: 83.7 ± 8.7 kg; Squat-1RM: 146 ± 19 kg) performed either a 3-s isometric squat at 130%1RM or a 6-s isometric squat at 65%1RM. In Study II, 28 participants (11 female; age: 23 ± 3 years; height: 1.77 ± 0.08 m; mass: 76.5 ± 10.4 kg; Squat-1RM: 109 ± 38 kg) completed either Squat (3 × 3 repetitions, 85%1RM) or local electromyostimulation of the quadriceps muscle (85% of individual pain threshold). In Study III, 20 participants (6 female, age: 25.0 ± 3.5 years, mass: 78.5 ± 15.8 kg, height: 1.75 ± 0.08 m; SQ-1RM: 114 ± 33 kg, chest-press-1RM: 74 ± 29 kg) performed either squats or chest press (4 repetitions, 80%1RM). Counter-Movement-Jump height (CMJ) was assessed after a general (PRE) and/or muscle-specific warm-up (POST_WU) and for up to 11 min after the PAPE protocols. To identify possible differences in CMJ between the experimental conditions, mixed-design ANOVA models were used for each study individually, with condition and timemodelled as fixed effects, while participants were included as a random effect blocking factor. The level of statistical significance was set at a = 5%. Results: In studies I and II, significant effects for time (p < 0.05, p 2 = 0.06 and p < 0.001, p 2 = 0.43) were found with the highest CMJ compared to all other time points at PRE (=8.2 ± 4.6%, standardized mean difference: =0.39), regardless of condition. In study III, no significant effects were observed. Discussion: Thus, PAPE protocols do not further improve jumping performance compared to a general and muscle-specific traditional warm-up. Prior to tasks requiring explosive strength, general and sport-specific warm-up strategies should be used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This controlled intervention study examined the effects of low-intensity rowing with blood flow restriction (BFR) on maximal oxygen uptake (...O2max), peak power output during ramp testing (PPO), and 2000-m time trial performance (P2k). Eleven, highly elite, male rowers (22.1 ± 1.6 years; 92.6 ± 3.8 kg; 1.93 ± 0.04 m; 7.9. ± 2.2 years rowing experience; 20.4 ± 2.0 h⋅w-1 training volume; 11.9 ± 1.1 session per week) trained 5 weeks without BFR (Base) followed by a 5-week BFR intervention period. BFR of the lower limb was applied through customized elastic wraps. BFR took place 3 times a week (accumulated net pBFR: 60 min⋅wk-1; occlusion per session: 2 times 10 min⋅session-1) and was used exclusively at low intensities (<2 mmol⋅L-1). ...O2max, PPO, and P2k were examined before, between, and after both intervention periods. Bayesian's credible intervals revealed relevantly increased ...O2max +0.30 L⋅min-1 (95% credible interval: +0.00 to +0.61 L⋅min-1) adaptations through BFR. By contrast, PPO +14 W (-6to+34 W and P2k -5W(-14 to +3 W) were not noticeably affected by the BFR intervention. This study revealed that 15 sessions of BFR application with a cumulative total BFR load of 5 h over a 5-week macrocycle increased ...O2max remarkably. Thus, pBFR might serve as a promising tool to improve aerobic capacity in highly trained elite rowers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and speed at first (LT1, minimal lactate equivalent) and second lactate threshold (LT2 = LT1 +1.5 mmol·L−1) are crucial swimming performance surrogates. The present randomized controlled study investigated the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) during low-intensity swimming (LiT) on VO2peak, LT1, and LT2. Eighteen male swimmers (22.7 ±3.0 yrs; 69.9 ±8.5 kg; 1.8 ±0.1 m) were either assigned to the BFR or control (noBFR) group. While BFR was applied during LiT, noBFR completed the identical LIT without BFR application. BFR of the upper limb was applied via customized pneumatic cuffs (75% of occlusion pressure: 135 ±10 mmHg; 8 cm cuff width). BFR training took place three times a week over 5 weeks (accumulated weekly net BFR training: 60 min·week−1; occlusion per session: 2-times 10 min·session−1) and was used exclusively at low intensities. VO2peak, LT1, and LT2 diagnostics were employed. Bayesian credible intervals revealed notable VO2peak improvements by +0.29 L·min−1 kg−1 (95% credible interval: −0.26 to +0.85 L·min−1 kg−1) when comparing BFR vs. noBFR. Speed at LT1 −0.01 m·s−1 (−0.04 to +0.02 m·s−1) and LT2 −0.01 m·s−1 (−0.03 to +0.02 m·s−1) did not change meaningfully when BFR was employed. Fifteen sessions of LIT swimming (macrocycle of 5 h over 5 weeks) with a weekly volume of 60 min with BFR application adds additional impact on VO2peak improvement compared to noBFR LIT swimming. Occasional BFR applications should be considered as a promising means to improve relevant performance surrogates in trained swimmers. Highlights Low-intensity swimming with blood flow restricted (BFR) induced superior peak oxygen consumption adaptations compared to non-restricted swimming training over a 5-week lasting training period BFR and non-BFR swimming training-induced similar adaptations regarding swimming speed at first and second lactate threshold In conclusion, BFR served as a feasible, promising and beneficial complementary training stimuli to traditional swimming training regarding oxygen consumption adaptations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Held, S, Rappelt, L, Rein, R, Deutsch, J-P, Wiedenmann, T, and Donath, L. Five-week, low-intensity, blood flow restriction rowing improves V̇ o2 max in elite rowers. J Strength Cond Res 38(6): e299-e303, 2024-This controlled intervention study examined the effects of low-intensity rowing with blood flow restriction (BFR) on maximal oxygen uptake (V̇ o2 max), peak power output during ramp testing (PPO), and 2000-m time trial performance (P2k). Eleven, highly elite, male rowers (22.1 ± 1.6 years; 92.6 ± 3.8 kg; 1.93 ± 0.04 m; 7.9. ± 2.2 years rowing experience; 20.4 ± 2.0 h·w -1 training volume; 11.9 ± 1.1 session per week) trained 5 weeks without BFR (Base) followed by a 5-week BFR intervention period. BFR of the lower limb was applied through customized elastic wraps. BFR took place 3 times a week (accumulated net pBFR: 60 min·wk -1 ; occlusion per session: 2 times 10 min·session -1 ) and was used exclusively at low intensities (<2 mmol·L -1 ). V̇ o2 max, PPO, and P2k were examined before, between, and after both intervention periods. Bayesian's credible intervals revealed relevantly increased V̇ o2 max +0.30 L·min -1 (95% credible interval: +0.00 to +0.61 L·min -1 ) adaptations through BFR. By contrast, PPO +14 W (-6 to +34 W) and P2k -5 W (-14 to +3 W) were not noticeably affected by the BFR intervention. This study revealed that 15 sessions of BFR application with a cumulative total BFR load of 5 h over a 5-week macrocycle increased V̇ o2 max remarkably. Thus, pBFR might serve as a promising tool to improve aerobic capacity in highly trained elite rowers., (Copyright © 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association.)