Interval running with self-selected recovery: Physiology,performance, and perception

This study (1) compared the physiological responses and performance during a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) session incorporating externally regulated (ER) and self-selected (SS) recovery periods and (2) examined the psychophysiological cues underpinning SS recovery durations. Following an incremental maximal exercise test to determine maximal aerobic speed (MAS), 14 recreationally active males completed 2 HIIT sessions on a non-motorised treadmill. Participants performed 12?×?30?s running intervals at a target intensity of 105% MAS interspersed with 30?s (ER) or SS recovery periods. During SS, participants were instructed to provide themselves with sufficient recovery to complete all 12 efforts at the required intensity. A semi-structured interview was undertaken following the completion of SS. Mean recovery duration was longer during SS (51?±?15?s) compared to ER (30?±?0?s; p?d?=?1.46?±?0.46). Between-interval heart rate recovery was higher (SS: 19?±?9?b?min^?1; ER: 8?±?5?b?min^?1; p?d?=?1.43?±?0.43) and absolute time ≥90% maximal heart rate (HR_max) was lower (SS: 335?±?193?s; ER: 433?±?147?s; p?=?.075; d?=?0.52?±?0.39) during SS compared to ER. Relative time ≥105% MAS was greater during SS (90?±?6%) compared to ER (74?±?20%; p?d?=?0.87?±?0.40). Different sources of afferent information underpinned decision-making during SS. The extended durations of recovery during SS resulted in a reduced time ≥90% HR_max but enhanced time ≥105% MAS, compared with ER exercise. Differences in the afferent cue utilisation of participants likely explain the large levels of inter-individual variability observed.     

A comparison of two methods for the calculation of accumulated oxygen deficit

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare accumulated oxygen deficit data derived using two different exercise protocols with the aim of producing a less time-consuming test specifically for use with athletes. Six road and four track male endurance cyclists performed two series of cycle ergometer tests. The first series involved five 10 min sub-maximal cycle exercise bouts, a VO_2peak test and a 115% VO_2peak test. Data from these tests were used to estimate the accumulated oxygen deficit according to the calculations of Medbø et al. (1988). In the second series of tests, participants performed a 15 min incremental cycle ergometer test followed, 2 min later, by a 2 min variable resistance test in which they completed as much work as possible while pedalling at a constant rate. Analysis revealed that the accumulated oxygen deficit calculated from the first series of tests was higher (P<0.02) than that calculated from the second series: 52.3±11.7 and 43.9±6.4 ml·kg^?1, respectively (mean±s). Other significant differences between the two protocols were observed for VO_2peak, total work and maximal heart rate; all were higher during the modified protocol (P<0.01 and P<0.02, respectively). Oxygen kinetics were also significantly faster during the modified 2 min maximal test. We conclude that the difference in accumulated oxygen deficit between protocols was probably due to a reduced oxygen uptake, possibly caused by a slower oxygen on-response during the 115% VO_2peak test in the first series, and VO₂—power output regression differences caused by an elevated VO ₂ during the early stages of the second series.