Physiological Responses During High-Intensity Interval Training in Young Swimmers

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Almeida, Tiago André Freire [UNESP]
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Pessôa Filho, Dalton Müller [UNESP], Espada, Mário Cunha, Reis, Joana Filipa, Sancassani, Andrei [UNESP], Massini, Danilo Alexandre [UNESP], Santos, Fernando Jorge, Alves, Francisco Besone
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.662029
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/221983
Resumo: This study analyzed whether 100- and 200-m interval training (IT) in swimming differed regarding temporal, perceptual, and physiological responses. The IT was performed at maximal aerobic velocity (MAV) until exhaustion and time spent near to maximalVO2 peak oxygen uptake (⩒O2peak), total time limit (tLim), peak blood lactate [La−] peak, ⩒O2 kinetics (⩒O2K), and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were compared between protocols. Twelve swimmers (seven males 16.1 ± 1.1 and five females 14.2 ± 1 years) completed a discontinuous incremental step test for the second ventilatory threshold (VT2), ⩒O2peak, and MAV assessment. The swimmers subsequently completed two IT protocols at MAV with 100- and 200-m bouts to determine the maximal ⩒O2 (peak-⩒O2) and time spent ≥VT2, 90, and 95% of ⩒O2peak for the entire protocols (IT100 and IT200) and during the first 800-m of each protocol (IT8x100 and IT4x200). A portable apparatus (K4b2) sampled gas exchange through a snorkel and an underwater led signal controlled the velocity. RPE was also recorded. The Peak-⩒O2 attained during IT8x100 and IT4x200 (57.3 ± 4.9 vs. 57.2 ± 4.6 ml·kg−1·min−1) were not different between protocols (p = 0.98) nor to ⩒O2peak (59.2 ± 4.2 ml·kg−1·min−1, p = 0.37). The time constant of ⩒O2K (24.9 ± 8.4 vs. 25.1 ± 6.3-s, p = 0.67) and [La−] peak (7.9 ± 3.4 and 8.7 ± 1.5 mmol·L−1, p = 0.15) also did not differ between IT100 and IT200. The time spent ≥VT2, 90, and 95%⩒O2peak were also not different between IT8x100 and IT4x200 (p = 0.93, 0.63, and 1.00, respectively). The RPE for IT8x100 was lower than that for IT4x200 (7.62 ± 2 vs. 9.5 ± 0.7, p = 0.01). Both protocols are considered suitable for aerobic power enhancement, since ⩒O2peak was attained with similar ⩒O2K and sustained with no differences in tLim. However, the fact that only the RPE differed between the IT protocols suggested that coaches should consider that nx100-m/15-s is perceived as less difficult to perform compared with nx200-m/30-s for the first 800-m when managing the best strategy to be implemented for aerobic power training.
id UNSP_815f6b972249313cce176ecc425a1efb
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/221983
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Physiological Responses During High-Intensity Interval Training in Young Swimmersinterval trainingoxygen uptake kineticsperformanceswimmingwork-intervalThis study analyzed whether 100- and 200-m interval training (IT) in swimming differed regarding temporal, perceptual, and physiological responses. The IT was performed at maximal aerobic velocity (MAV) until exhaustion and time spent near to maximalVO2 peak oxygen uptake (⩒O2peak), total time limit (tLim), peak blood lactate [La−] peak, ⩒O2 kinetics (⩒O2K), and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were compared between protocols. Twelve swimmers (seven males 16.1 ± 1.1 and five females 14.2 ± 1 years) completed a discontinuous incremental step test for the second ventilatory threshold (VT2), ⩒O2peak, and MAV assessment. The swimmers subsequently completed two IT protocols at MAV with 100- and 200-m bouts to determine the maximal ⩒O2 (peak-⩒O2) and time spent ≥VT2, 90, and 95% of ⩒O2peak for the entire protocols (IT100 and IT200) and during the first 800-m of each protocol (IT8x100 and IT4x200). A portable apparatus (K4b2) sampled gas exchange through a snorkel and an underwater led signal controlled the velocity. RPE was also recorded. The Peak-⩒O2 attained during IT8x100 and IT4x200 (57.3 ± 4.9 vs. 57.2 ± 4.6 ml·kg−1·min−1) were not different between protocols (p = 0.98) nor to ⩒O2peak (59.2 ± 4.2 ml·kg−1·min−1, p = 0.37). The time constant of ⩒O2K (24.9 ± 8.4 vs. 25.1 ± 6.3-s, p = 0.67) and [La−] peak (7.9 ± 3.4 and 8.7 ± 1.5 mmol·L−1, p = 0.15) also did not differ between IT100 and IT200. The time spent ≥VT2, 90, and 95%⩒O2peak were also not different between IT8x100 and IT4x200 (p = 0.93, 0.63, and 1.00, respectively). The RPE for IT8x100 was lower than that for IT4x200 (7.62 ± 2 vs. 9.5 ± 0.7, p = 0.01). Both protocols are considered suitable for aerobic power enhancement, since ⩒O2peak was attained with similar ⩒O2K and sustained with no differences in tLim. However, the fact that only the RPE differed between the IT protocols suggested that coaches should consider that nx100-m/15-s is perceived as less difficult to perform compared with nx200-m/30-s for the first 800-m when managing the best strategy to be implemented for aerobic power training.Fundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaFoundation for Science and TechnologyInterdisciplinary Center for the Study of Human Performance (CIPER) Faculdade de Motricidade Humana Universidade de LisboaFaculdade de Motricidade Humana Universidade de LisboaDepartment of Physical Education São Paulo State University (UNESP)Institute of Bioscience Graduate Program in Human Development and Technology São Paulo State University (UNESP)Department of Science and Technology Polytechnic Institute of SetúbalQuality of Life Research CenterDepartment of Physical Education São Paulo State University (UNESP)Institute of Bioscience Graduate Program in Human Development and Technology São Paulo State University (UNESP)Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia: UIDB/04748/2020Foundation for Science and Technology: UIDB/04748/2020Universidade de LisboaUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)Polytechnic Institute of SetúbalQuality of Life Research CenterAlmeida, Tiago André Freire [UNESP]Pessôa Filho, Dalton Müller [UNESP]Espada, Mário CunhaReis, Joana FilipaSancassani, Andrei [UNESP]Massini, Danilo Alexandre [UNESP]Santos, Fernando JorgeAlves, Francisco Besone2022-04-28T19:41:39Z2022-04-28T19:41:39Z2021-07-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.662029Frontiers in Physiology, v. 12.1664-042Xhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/22198310.3389/fphys.2021.6620292-s2.0-85110530010Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengFrontiers in Physiologyinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2022-04-28T19:41:39Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/221983Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-05T17:40:50.253728Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Physiological Responses During High-Intensity Interval Training in Young Swimmers
title Physiological Responses During High-Intensity Interval Training in Young Swimmers
spellingShingle Physiological Responses During High-Intensity Interval Training in Young Swimmers
Almeida, Tiago André Freire [UNESP]
interval training
oxygen uptake kinetics
performance
swimming
work-interval
title_short Physiological Responses During High-Intensity Interval Training in Young Swimmers
title_full Physiological Responses During High-Intensity Interval Training in Young Swimmers
title_fullStr Physiological Responses During High-Intensity Interval Training in Young Swimmers
title_full_unstemmed Physiological Responses During High-Intensity Interval Training in Young Swimmers
title_sort Physiological Responses During High-Intensity Interval Training in Young Swimmers
author Almeida, Tiago André Freire [UNESP]
author_facet Almeida, Tiago André Freire [UNESP]
Pessôa Filho, Dalton Müller [UNESP]
Espada, Mário Cunha
Reis, Joana Filipa
Sancassani, Andrei [UNESP]
Massini, Danilo Alexandre [UNESP]
Santos, Fernando Jorge
Alves, Francisco Besone
author_role author
author2 Pessôa Filho, Dalton Müller [UNESP]
Espada, Mário Cunha
Reis, Joana Filipa
Sancassani, Andrei [UNESP]
Massini, Danilo Alexandre [UNESP]
Santos, Fernando Jorge
Alves, Francisco Besone
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade de Lisboa
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
Polytechnic Institute of Setúbal
Quality of Life Research Center
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Almeida, Tiago André Freire [UNESP]
Pessôa Filho, Dalton Müller [UNESP]
Espada, Mário Cunha
Reis, Joana Filipa
Sancassani, Andrei [UNESP]
Massini, Danilo Alexandre [UNESP]
Santos, Fernando Jorge
Alves, Francisco Besone
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv interval training
oxygen uptake kinetics
performance
swimming
work-interval
topic interval training
oxygen uptake kinetics
performance
swimming
work-interval
description This study analyzed whether 100- and 200-m interval training (IT) in swimming differed regarding temporal, perceptual, and physiological responses. The IT was performed at maximal aerobic velocity (MAV) until exhaustion and time spent near to maximalVO2 peak oxygen uptake (⩒O2peak), total time limit (tLim), peak blood lactate [La−] peak, ⩒O2 kinetics (⩒O2K), and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were compared between protocols. Twelve swimmers (seven males 16.1 ± 1.1 and five females 14.2 ± 1 years) completed a discontinuous incremental step test for the second ventilatory threshold (VT2), ⩒O2peak, and MAV assessment. The swimmers subsequently completed two IT protocols at MAV with 100- and 200-m bouts to determine the maximal ⩒O2 (peak-⩒O2) and time spent ≥VT2, 90, and 95% of ⩒O2peak for the entire protocols (IT100 and IT200) and during the first 800-m of each protocol (IT8x100 and IT4x200). A portable apparatus (K4b2) sampled gas exchange through a snorkel and an underwater led signal controlled the velocity. RPE was also recorded. The Peak-⩒O2 attained during IT8x100 and IT4x200 (57.3 ± 4.9 vs. 57.2 ± 4.6 ml·kg−1·min−1) were not different between protocols (p = 0.98) nor to ⩒O2peak (59.2 ± 4.2 ml·kg−1·min−1, p = 0.37). The time constant of ⩒O2K (24.9 ± 8.4 vs. 25.1 ± 6.3-s, p = 0.67) and [La−] peak (7.9 ± 3.4 and 8.7 ± 1.5 mmol·L−1, p = 0.15) also did not differ between IT100 and IT200. The time spent ≥VT2, 90, and 95%⩒O2peak were also not different between IT8x100 and IT4x200 (p = 0.93, 0.63, and 1.00, respectively). The RPE for IT8x100 was lower than that for IT4x200 (7.62 ± 2 vs. 9.5 ± 0.7, p = 0.01). Both protocols are considered suitable for aerobic power enhancement, since ⩒O2peak was attained with similar ⩒O2K and sustained with no differences in tLim. However, the fact that only the RPE differed between the IT protocols suggested that coaches should consider that nx100-m/15-s is perceived as less difficult to perform compared with nx200-m/30-s for the first 800-m when managing the best strategy to be implemented for aerobic power training.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-07-01
2022-04-28T19:41:39Z
2022-04-28T19:41:39Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.662029
Frontiers in Physiology, v. 12.
1664-042X
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/221983
10.3389/fphys.2021.662029
2-s2.0-85110530010
url http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.662029
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/221983
identifier_str_mv Frontiers in Physiology, v. 12.
1664-042X
10.3389/fphys.2021.662029
2-s2.0-85110530010
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Frontiers in Physiology
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1808128843749261312