Next Article in Journal
An Experimental Study on the Physical and Mechanical Properties of Granite after High-Temperature Treatment Considering Anisotropy
Next Article in Special Issue
Blood Flow Restriction Exercise as a Novel Conservative Standard in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis—A Narrative Review
Previous Article in Journal
New Technologies and Applications of Edge/Fog Computing Based on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
Previous Article in Special Issue
Associations of Physical Fitness with Cognitive Performance in Children Aged 7–12 Years: A Cross-Sectional Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 13
10.3390/app14135584
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Physiological, Mechanical, and Perceptual Responses to Comparing 7.5% and 10% Body Mass Load during the Cycling Sprint Interval Exercise in Physically Active Men

by
Natalia Danek
*,
Paulina Hebisz
and
Marek Zatoń
Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Wroclaw University of Health and Sport Sciences, 51-612 Wroclaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(13), 5584; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135584
Submission received: 24 May 2024 / Revised: 24 June 2024 / Accepted: 25 June 2024 / Published: 27 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Exercise, Fitness, Human Performance and Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of the study was to verify changes in peak power output (PPO), acid-base balance, blood lactate (La−) accumulation, and oxygen uptake (VO2) whilst applying a 7.5% and 10% load of the participant’s body mass in a cycling sprint interval exercise (SIE) (two series consisting of 3 × 10 s efforts “all-out” separated by a 30 s active break). Twelve healthy, physically active men with maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max = 52.4 ± 7.8 mL∙kg−1∙min−1) were included in the study and performed two cross-over SIE sessions, with a load of 7.5% of the participant’s body mass (SIE7.5%) and 10% of the participant’s body mass applied (SIE10%). The physiological, mechanical, and perceptual responses were assessed during and after each session. After SIE10%, a 10.3% higher and 25.5% faster PPO time was obtained, with no significant differences in La−, a lower physiological cost (mean oxygen uptake and mean heart rate), faster restitution of VO2 and heart rate, and a lower rate of perceived exertion. Therefore, a 10% load of the participant’s body mass during 10 s effort induced greater physiological adaptations and mechanical responses, which may promote the use of a higher workload in sprint interval training to improve physical performance.

1. Introduction

Lack of sufficient time is one of the main explanations for lack of regular physical activity [1]. This problem can be solved by trying to find a relevant interval strategy that requires less time, giving many potential health benefits [2,3,4].
The adequate matching of an interval session is a complicated process and requires the consideration of several variables, including the intensity of the interval repetitions, their time duration, the type and duration of the interval, the number of repetitions, the number of series, and the time and intensity of the interval between series, among others [5]. Many published studies on the efficacy of interval training consist of several 30 s efforts, with the protocol based on the classic Wingate test [2,3,5,6,7,8]. However, some find a protocol based on 30 s efforts very demanding/heavy to perform [9]. Therefore, shorter duration repetitions are suggested to reduce negative affective reactions while effectively developing both aerobic and anaerobic capacity [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. In order to gain an understanding of the physiological and perceptual responses to different interval programs as crucial aspects of the training cycle, studies verifying the previously mentioned modifications in a single interval session were conducted [12,18]. Benitez-Flores et al. [12] verified the physiological, mechanical, and emotional effects of using the interval session of SIT5 (16 × 5 s repetitions with a 24 s interval) and SIT20 (4 × 20 s repetitions with a 120 s interval), performed in a random order on a cycloergometer, and showed that shorter efforts and shorter breaks led to a greater amplitude of changes in cardiovascular function, provoked higher exercise oxygen uptake, and the achieved higher peak power and total work performed. In contrast, respiratory exchange ratio (RER), percentage change in blood lactate concentration (diff La−), and fatigue index (FI) were higher in SIT20, indicating that the SIT sessions with shorter efforts were associated with higher aerobic and anaerobic activity. Danek et al. [19] compared two interval session protocols with the same volume of work and breaks separated by a 15 min activity interval as follows: (1) 3 × 10 s repetitions with a 30 s activity break; (2) 6 × 10 s repetitions with a 4 min activity break. They showed higher oxygen uptake and heart rate (HR) with a lower rating of perceived exertion (RPE). SIT has been shown to be a time-efficient strategy for promoting metabolic adaptations in skeletal muscle [20] while improving maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and peak power output [3] with relatively low training effort.
The selection of an appropriate load, which determines exercise intensity, is one of nine variables that modifies an interval strategy [5]. Broatch et al. [21] used the classic SIT protocol modified load selection and applied a progression over a 6-week training process from 7.5% to 9.5% of body mass. The main goal of exercising with higher resistance is to create additional load in the involved muscles, as this additional load is considered to induce neuronal activation and greater recruitment of fast motor units [22]. However, to date, the optimal load in sprint interval training has not yet been established, despite hypotheses of changes in movement mechanics affecting, among other things, the time to peak power output (PPO) and the higher rotation rate of the cycloergometer flywheel.
Considering these observations, the main purpose of this study was to verify changes in PPO, pH, blood lactate concentration, and oxygen uptake whilst applying a load of 7.5% and 10% of the participant’s body mass in a single interval session (two series of 3 × 10 s maximal exercise repetitions, separated by a 30 s activity break). We hypothesized that the application of a load of 10% of the participant’s body mass during a single interval unit would result in higher power output, shorter maintenance time, and a post-exercise increase in lactate concentration.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The study involved 12 healthy men aged 24.9 ± 4.1 years who volunteered to participate in this project. Each declared a minimum of 5 h per week of moderate physical exercise (swimming, running, strength training). None played sports at a professional level. In addition, no participant was classified as being at risk of metabolic, respiratory, or cardiovascular diseases. No smokers participated in the study. In addition, exclusion criteria included unhealed bone and muscle injuries. All were informed about the project procedure and gave written informed consent to participate. The scientific project was approved by the Research Bioethics Committee (1/2019) and was conducted in conformity with the Declaration of Helsinki at the Exercise Testing Laboratory (certified PN-EN ISO 9001: 2001). Detailed characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 1.

2.2. Study Design

The study comprised 4 visits to the laboratory, separated by a minimum of 72 h, during which cycloergometer exercise sessions were carried out. All sessions were conducted between 8:00 and 12:00. During these experiments, participants maintained their current physical activity and were asked to avoid heavy exercise, alcoholic beverages, energy drinks, and caffeine for 24 h before each laboratory session. Body mass (kg) and height (m) were measured using a WPT 200 medical scale (RADWAG, Radom, Poland) during the first visit. Resting systolic and diastolic blood pressure was measured with an aneroid sphygmomanometer (Riester, Jungingen, Germany). The incremental exercise test (IET) was performed according to the protocol of Michalik et al. [23] to determine cardiovascular and respiratory capacity. During the test and during the 5 min post-test recovery, respiratory parameters were recorded. The participants wore a mask connected to a Quark respiratory gas analyzer (Cosmed, Rome, Italy), which was calibrated before the test. Respiratory parameters, including oxygen uptake (VO2), pulmonary ventilation (VE), tidal volume (VT), and breathing frequency (Rf) were measured in each recorded breath (breath-by-breath), and then averaged at 30 s intervals. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), maximal pulmonary ventilation (VEmax), maximal tidal volume (VTmax), and maximal breathing frequency (Rfmax) were obtained from the recorded data. The second visit involved familiarization with the cycling sprint interval exercise (SIE) protocol. During the third and fourth visits, single cross-over SIE sessions were conducted, during which, in randomized order, SIE was performed with a load of 7.5% of the participant’s body mass (SIE7.5%) and with a load of 10% of the participant’s body mass (SIE10%).

2.3. Blood Measurements

Capillary blood was collected from the fingertip of the hand prior to IET, at rest, for the determination of morphotic parameters as follows: erythrocyte (RBC), hemoglobin concentration (HGB), and hematocrit (Hct), using an ABX Micros OT.16 (Horiba Medical, Kyoto, Japan) and acid-base balance was determined by measuring blood pH using a RapidLab 348 analyser (Bayer, Berlin, Germany). Lactate concentration (La−) was measured on a photometer (LP 400 Dr Lange, Berlin, Germany) in the 3rd minute after the IET and in the 3rd minute after series I and series II of the cycling sprint interval exercise.

2.4. Body Temperature

Body temperature (T) was measured at the temple. The temporal site was chosen because of the superficial blood vessel network in the temporal artery area [24]. Measurement was performed at rest and immediately after SIE using an electronic infrared thermometer (VisioFocus Smart® Tecnimed, Vedano, Italy).

2.5. Rating of Perceived Exertion

The Borg Scale was used to provide a subjective assessment of the participant’s perceived exercise intensity [25]. A score > 18 indicated that a maximal effort had been achieved and values > 15–16 indicated that the anaerobic threshold had been exceeded. Scores on this scale refer to heart rate. The basic rule of the scale is to multiply the predicted HR for a given effort by 10; hence, an effort that increases the heart rate to 180 beats/min−1 receives 18 points, and full rest in which the HR oscillates around 60 beats/min−1 receives 6 points. The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was measured immediately after the warm-up and after each repetition of SIE.

2.6. Cycling Sprint Interval Exercise (SIE)

The cycling sprint interval exercise session was performed on a cycle ergometer (Ergomedic Monark 894, Vansbro, Sweden) following the protocol described by Danek et al. [19] and the results are presented in Figure 1. A 10 min warm-up at an intensity of 60% of the MAP (maximal aerobic power) obtained in the incremental exercise test was used, during which 2 × 5 s ‘all-out’ sprints were performed in the 3rd and 6th minutes. The warm-up was a 5-minute passive rest in a sitting position. In the main part, participants performed two series of 3 × 10 s “all-out” efforts with a 30 s activity break between sprints. The break between series was active during 15 min, while the 5 min recovery after the end of the 2nd SIE series was passive. In order to avoid orthostatic collapse, the intervals between sprints and series were performed with 50 W load and a rotation frequency of 50 rpm. A flow chart is presented in Figure 1.
Respiratory gasses were measured using the Quark b2 (Cosmed, Rome, Italy). Heart rate was recorded during the session using the S810 sports-tester (Polar Electro, Kempele, Finland). Physical parameters, such as peak power output (PPO), total work (Wtot), and time to achieve PPO (tPPO) was calculated using MCE 2.0 software (MCE, Wrocław, Poland). When measuring anaerobic fatigue during the SIE, the fatigue index (FI) was applied by taking the percentage of power drop for the 1st and 2nd series, according to the formula:
FI = (100 × (sum of PPO × highest PPO−1)) − 100,
where: sum PPO = sum of power of all sprints; highest PPO = number of sprints (n) × highest PPO [26].

2.7. Statistical Analysis

The size of the study group was determined a priori using G*Power 3.1 software (version 3.1.9.2; Kiel University, Kiel, Germany) [27], so that the effect size (ES) reached (Cohen’s f) 0.8 and power 0.8 [28]. The minimum group size was 10 participants.
Twelve participants were finally recruited for the study. Mean values of oxygen uptake, minute lung ventilation, tidal volume, and heart rate were calculated for 23 min (1 min work, 17 min active, and 5 min passive rest) in both of the SIE protocols. In addition, the averages of the above parameters were calculated for the first and second SIE series (3 × 10 s repetitions and 3 × 30 s active rest intervals) and the 60 s passive recovery after completion of the last repetition in the series.
Statistica 13.3 (StatSoft Inc.,Tulsa, OK, USA) was used to analyze the data. The arithmetic mean ( x ¯ ) and standard deviation (SD) were used to present the data. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to evaluate the normal distribution of the analyzed characteristics, and homogeneity of variance was assessed with the Levene’s test. Student’s t-test for dependent samples was used to evaluate differences in selected parameters between SIE protocols. A two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was used to analyze changes in selected parameters. When a significant F value was obtained, a Bonferroni post hoc test was performed. The effect size (ES) d Cohen [29] was calculated to demonstrate a practical effect, using the following criteria: (small = 0.2, moderate = 0.5, medium = 0.6, large = 0.8). A level of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, and more radical differences at p < 0.01 were also indicated.

3. Results

Analyzing the results of cardiopulmonary parameters, both averaged and peak values, statistically significant differences were found between SIE10% and SIE7.5% in VO2mean and HR mean. Both values were lower in the interval session with a 10% load of the participant’s body mass. An inverse positive trend was observed in lactate levels after performing SIE10% (Table 2).
In the first series, in the experimental condition (SIE10%), HR mean was higher compared to SIE7.5%, respectively 174 ± 6 vs. 168 ± 8 (p < 0.01; ES = 0.9). Similarly, differences were observed in the second series as follows: 180 ± 8 vs. 177 ± 9 (p < 0.01; ES = 0.4).
In both the first and second series, we observed lower RPE (p < 0.01) in the experimental condition (SIE10%) as follows: first series 16 to 18 (p < 0.01; t = 3.6; ES = −1); second series 17 to 19 (p < 0.01; t = 6.6ES = −1.3). In addition, the course of 5 min restitution after the second series was analyzed. Statistically significantly lower oxygen uptake (15%, p < 0.01) and heart rate (3.9%, p < 0.01) were observed in the first minute of restitution in the SIE10% protocol compared to SIE7.5% (Figure 2).
Statistical significance was demonstrated in the higher fatigue index in the first series in SIE10% (Table 3). The mean value of total work in the first and second series was not statistically significantly different between conditions. When comparing the relative peak power output in subsequent repetitions of the first and second series in both conditions (SIE7.5% vs. SIE10%), a statistically significant difference was observed in the first repetition of the first series (Figure 3). A 10.3% higher power output was obtained in the SIE10% compared to the SIE7.5% (p < 0.01, t = 3.8).
When analyzing the time to achieve PPO in each repetition, a statistically significantly shorter time of 25.5% was observed (p < 0.05, t = 2.3) during the second repetition of the second series at SIE10% compared to SIE7.5% (Figure 4). The time to achieve PPO was statistically significantly lower during the second repetition of series II during SIE10%.

4. Discussion

The main findings of the current study suggest that the application of a 10% load of the participant’s body mass during a sprint interval exercise consisting of two series of 3 × 10 s all-out efforts (SIE10%) provides a higher relative peak power output (Figure 3), achieved at a statistically significantly faster time, and a lower physiological cost (Figure 4), as measured by mean oxygen uptake and mean heart rate, compared to the control condition (SIE7.5%) (Table 2, Figure 2). A further interesting observation is that a statistically significantly higher mean heart rate was achieved during both the first and second series at SIE10%, with significantly more effective restitution of HR (Figure 2A) and VO2. After both the first and second series of SIE, the rating of perceived exertion was statistically significantly lower in SIE10%. In contrast, there were no differences between protocols for changes in lactate accumulation and changes in mean body temperature. Additionally, there was a higher fatigue index (FI) in the SIE10% series compared to SIE7.5%. Similar observations were observed by Üçok et al. [30] in FI when comparing different loads in Wingate tests, although unfortunately they did not measure cardiorespiratory parameters.
According to Balsom et al. [31] and Billaut and Buchheit [32], muscle oxygen availability and O2 kinetics [33] are thought to be important factors in ATP regeneration via phosphocreatine (PCr) resynthesis for energy supply during repeated short (<10 s) sprint sequences. Therefore, the attainment of a higher rPPO while maintaining a faster restitution of oxygen uptake and heart rate may have resulted from a faster rate of phosphocreatine resynthesis. Bogdanis et al. [34] also acknowledge that crucial factors for maintaining and recovering power output include the availability and resynthesis of PCr. However, this requires in-depth analysis of muscle biopsies, which was not performed in the present study. Further research may verify whether different acute responses affect long-term adaptations of aerobic metabolism.
Additionally, after both the first and second series of SIE, the rating of perceived exertion was statistically significantly lower in SIE10%. This assessment may have been due to a 25.5% shorter time to peak power output (Figure 4) and a significantly higher fatigue index in the first series (Table 3). This effect could also have been caused by the simultaneous recruitment of more type IIx fast-twitch fibers [35]. This is consistent with the findings of Creer et al. [36], who reported that the achievement of higher power output and performance of greater work was associated with changes at the neural level (greater activation of type II motor units) and at the metabolic level after maximal anaerobic exercise. This may indicate greater activation of glycolytic processes and a more efficient ATP-PCr system [3,37].
Inbar et al. [38] tested different loads during 30 s maximal efforts and reported that loads in the range of 9% to 11% of the participant’s body mass resulted in greater energy production in physically active adult men compared to lower loads. Dotan and Bar-Or [39] suggested that the optimal load should be 8.7% of the participant’s body mass. However, the results of a study by Jaafar et al. [40] showed that the use of this load (8.7% of the participant’s body mass) represented a large underestimation (~30%) in the achievement of PPO by highly performing individuals. According to these researchers, the optimal load should be 10% of the participant’s body mass. The selection of an appropriate load is a crucial element in achieving maximal power output, which also depends on the frequency of rotation on the Monark ergometer [41]. The optimal frequency at a constant load can be determined by multi-stage sprints, known as the force-velocity test (FVT), at different rotational frequencies [41]. The FVT enables the determination of the linear correlation between braking force/torque and pedal speed (cadence) and the multinomial correlation between power and speed/cadence. In this study, physically active participants achieving a cadence of >119 repetition·min−1 were characterized by a predominance of fast-twitch fibers compared to participants achieving an average cadence of approximately 104 repetition·min−1, in whom slow-twitch fibers predominated [35,41]. In the present study, the maximal cadence was not statistically significantly different between conditions, recorded as 147 in the SIE10% and 145 repetition·min−1 in the control condition, respectively. However, determining the type of muscle fibers involved requires electromyographic testing, which was not performed in the present study.
The results of the present study comparing a load of 7.5% vs. 10% of the participant’s body mass during SIE indicate that a higher relative peak power output (rPPO) is obtained with a lower VO2mean when a 10% load is applied. Furthermore, despite the higher external load, positive mechanical responses were evident in the generation of higher peak power output obtained in a shorter time, with a slightly higher cadence. This may promote the use of higher load in sprint interval training. Given the greater effectiveness of interval efforts of shorter duration and that the use of a higher load (10% of the participant’s body mass) results in a greater amplitude of the physiological responses with a lower of rating of perceived exertion, this may determine the effective improvement of physical performance.

5. Conclusions

In summary, for the first time we investigated physiological, perceptual, and mechanical responses by comparing loads of 7.5% vs. 10% of the participant’s body mass during a single interval session consisting of two 3 × 10 s “all-out” series. We used the same exercise session frequency with intensity changes during 10 s repetitions in healthy young men. The results of the current study suggest that the SIE protocol with a 10% load of the participant’s body mass promotes a higher peak power output (rPPO) without significant differences in lactate accumulation, at a lower physiological cost (mean oxygen uptake and lower HRmean), with faster VO2 and HR restitution, and with a lower rating of perceived exertion (RPE). Therefore, the use of a 10% workload during 10 s efforts may generate greater physiological adaptations and greater mechanical responses. However, further longitudinal studies may verify whether these differences in acute responses between protocols are associated with greater adaptations in the long term and can be successfully applied in training.

6. Limitations

This research has a few limitations. Firstly, only physically active adult men were recruited for our study. Future studies are encouraged to investigate how different workloads also affect physiological responses in different populations (i.e., women, sedentary participants, athletes, and older adults) to increase the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, given that energetic intake and dietary patterns can impact anaerobic power, providing a normalized meal before the experimental session could increase confidence in our results.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.D. and M.Z.; methodology, N.D. and M.Z.; software, N.D.; validation, M.Z. and P.H.; formal analysis, N.D.; investigation, N.D. and P.H.; resources, N.D. and P.H.; data curation, N.D.; writing—original draft preparation, N.D. and M.Z.; writing—review and editing, N.D., P.H. and M.Z.; visualization, N.D.; supervision, N.D. and M.Z.; project administration, N.D. and M.Z.; funding acquisition, N.D., P.H. and M.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This research was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethics Committee Sciences (protocol code: 1/2019; approval date: 7 January 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed permission was obtained from all participants taking part in the research.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the participants who made this research possible.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no relevant competing financial, professional or personal interests that could influence the study described in this manuscript.

References

  1. Trost, S.G.; Owen, N.; Bauman, A.E.; Sallis, J.F.; Brown, W. Correlates of adults’ participation in physical activity: Review and update. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2002, 34, 1996–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hazell, T.J.; MacPherson, R.E.; Gravelle, B.M.; Lemon, P.W. 10 or 30-s sprint interval training bouts enhance both aerobic and anaerobic performance. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2010, 110, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Sloth, M.; Sloth, D.; Overgaard, K.; Dalgas, U. Effects of sprint interval training on VO2max and aerobic exercise performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2013, 23, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Batacan, R.B.; Duncan, M.J.; Dalbo, V.J.; Tucker, P.S.; Fenning, A.S. Effects of high-intensity interval training on cardiometabolic health: A systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies. Br. J. Sports Med. 2017, 51, 494–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Buchheit, M.; Laursen, P.B. High-intensity interval training, solutions to the programming puzzle. Sports Med. 2013, 43, 313–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Vollaard, N.B.; Metcalfe, R.S. Research into the health benefits of sprint interval training should focus on protocols with fewer and shorter sprints. Sports Med. 2017, 47, 2443–2451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Burgomaster, K.A.; Howarth, K.R.; Phillips, S.M.; Rakobowchuk, M.; MacDonald, M.J.; McGee, S.L.; Gibala, M.J. Similar metabolic adaptations during exercise after low volume sprint interval and traditional endurance training in humans. J. Physiol. 2008, 586, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Parolin, M.L.; Chesley, A.; Matsos, M.P.; Spriet, L.L.; Jones, N.L.; Heigenhauser, G.J. Regulation of skeletal muscle glycogen phosphorylase and PDH during maximal intermittent exercise. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 1999, 5, E890–E900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Biddle, S.J.; Batterham, A.M. High-intensity interval exercise training for public health: A big HIT or shall we HIT it on the head? Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. IJBNPA 2015, 12, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Boullosa, D.; Dragutinovic, B.; Feuerbacher, J.F.; Benítez-Flores, S.; Coyle, E.F.; Schumann, M. Effects of short sprint intervaltraining on aerobic and anaerobic indices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2022, 32, 810–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fiorenza, M.; Hostrup, M.; Gunnarsson, T.P.; Shirai, Y.; Schena, F.; Iaia, F.M.; Bangsbo, J. Neuromuscular fatigue and metabolism during high-intensity intermittent exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2019, 51, 1642–1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Benitez-Flores, S.; de Sousa, A.F.M.; da Cunha Totó, E.C.; Rosa, T.S.; Del Rosso, S.; Foster, C.; Boullosa, D.A. Shorter sprints elicit greater cardiorespiratory and mechanical responses with less fatigue during time-matched sprint interval training (SIT) sessions. Kinesiology 2018, 50, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. McKie, G.L.; Islam, H.; Townsend, L.K.; Robertson-Wilson, J.; Eys, M.; Hazell, T.J. Modified sprint interval training protocols: Physiological and psychological responses to 4 weeks of training. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2018, 43, 595–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Olek, R.A.; Kujach, S.; Ziemann, E.; Ziolkowski, W.; Waz, P.; Laskowski, R. Adaptive changes after 2 weeks of 10-s sprint interval training with various recovery times. Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Nalçakan, G.R.; Songsorn, P.; Fitzpatrick, B.L.; Yüzbasioglu, Y.; Brick, N.E.; Metcalfe, R.S.; Vollaard, N.B. Decreasing sprint duration from 20 to 10 s during reduced-exertion high-intensity interval training (REHIT) attenuates the increase in maximal aerobic capacity but has no effect on affective and perceptual responses. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2018, 43, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Harnish, C.R.; Sabo, R.T. Comparison of two different sprint interval training work-to-rest ratios on acute inflammatory responses. Sports Med.-Open 2016, 2, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kavaliauskas, M.; Aspe, R.R.; Babraj, J. High-intensity cycling training: The effect of work-to-rest intervals on running performance measures. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 2229–2236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Islam, H.; Townsend, L.K.; Hazell, T.J. Modified sprint interval training protocols. Part I. Physiological responses. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2016, 42, 339–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Danek, N.; Smolarek, M.; Michalik, K.; Zatoń, M. Comparison of acute responses to two different cycling sprint interval exercise protocols with different recovery durations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gibala, M.J.; Little, J.P.; MacDonald, M.J.; Hawley, J.A. Physiological adaptations to low volume, high intensity interval training in health and disease. J. Physiol. 2012, 590, 1077–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Broatch, J.R.; Petersen, A.; Bishop, D.J. Cold-water immersion following sprint interval training does not alter endurance signaling pathways or training adaptations in human skeletal muscle. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. AM 2017, 313, R372–R384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Bachero-Mena, B.; González-Badillo, J.J. Effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration with three different loads accounting for 5, 12.5, and 20% of body mass. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 2954–2960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Michalik, K.; Danek, N.; Zatoń, M. Assessment of the physical fitness of road cyclists in the step and ramp protocols of the incremental test. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2019, 59, 1285–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Hebisz, R.; Hebisz, P.; Borkowski, J.; Wierzbicka-Damska, I.; Zatoń, M. Relationship Between the Skin Surface Temperature Changes During Sprint Interval Testing Protocol and the Aerobic Capacity in Well-Trained Cyclists. Physiol. Res. 2019, 68, 981–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Borg, G.A. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1982, 14, 377–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Glaister, M.; Howatson, G.; Pattison, J.R.; McInnes, G. The reliability and validity of fatigue measures during multiple-sprint work: An issue revisited. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2008, 22, 1597–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.G.; Buchner, A. G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; LEA: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  29. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Routledge: Abington, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  30. Üçok, K.; Gökbel, H.; Okudan, N. The Load of the Wingate Test: According to the Body Weight or Lean Body Mass? Eur. J. Gen. Med. 2005, 2, 10–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Balsom, P.D.; Gaitanos, G.C.; Ekblom, B.; Sjödin, B. Reduced oxygen availability during high intensity intermittent exercise impairs performance. Acta Physiol. 1994, 152, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Billaut, F.; Buchheit, M. Repeated sprint performance and vastus lateralis oxygenation: Effect of limited O2 availability. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2013, 23, e185–e193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dupont, G.; Millet, G.P.; Guinhouya, C.; Berthoin, S. Relationship between oxygen uptake kinetics and performance in repeated running sprints. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2005, 95, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Bogdanis, G.C.; Nevill, M.E.; Boobis, L.H.; Lakomy, H.K. Contribution of phosphocreatine and aerobic metabolism to energy supply during repeated sprint exercise. J. Appl. Physiol. 1996, 80, 876–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Sargeant, A.J.; Dolan, P.; Young, A. Optimal velocity for maximal short-term (anaerobic) power output in cycling. Int. J. Sports Med. 1984, 5, S124–S125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Creer, A.R.; Ricard, M.D.; Conlee, R.K.; Hoyt, G.L.; Parcell, A.C. Neural, metabolic, and performance adaptations to four weeks of high intensity sprint-interval training in trained cyclists. Int. J. Sports Med. 2004, 25, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Jacobs, I.; Esbjörnsson, M.O.N.A.; Sylven, C.; Holm, I.; Jansson, E. Sprint training effects on muscle myoglobin, enzymes, fiber types, and blood lactate. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1987, 19, 368–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Inbar, O.; Bar-Or, O.; Skinner, J. The Wingate Anaerobic Test; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  39. Dotan, R.; Bar-Or, O. Load optimization for the Wingate anaerobic test. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 1983, 51, 409–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Jaafar, H.; Rouis, M.; Coudrat, L.; Attiogbé, E.; Vandewalle, H.; Driss, T. Effects of load on Wingate test performances and reliability. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 3462–3468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sargeant, A.J.; Rouleau, M.Y.; Sutton, J.R.; Jones, N.L. Ventilation in exercise studied with circulatory occlusion. J. Appl. Physiol. Respir. Environ. Exerc. Physiol. 1981, 50, 718–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 14 05584 g001
Figure 1. Cycling sprint interval exercise (SIE) protocols.
Figure 1. Cycling sprint interval exercise (SIE) protocols.
Applsci 14 05584 g001
Applsci 14 05584 g002
Figure 2. Course of 5 min restitution of HR (A); VO2 (B); VE (C); and VT (D) after SIE with 7.5% (SIE7.5%) and 10% (SIE10%) load relative to body mass. * statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in the first minute of restitution between conditions.
Figure 2. Course of 5 min restitution of HR (A); VO2 (B); VE (C); and VT (D) after SIE with 7.5% (SIE7.5%) and 10% (SIE10%) load relative to body mass. * statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in the first minute of restitution between conditions.
Applsci 14 05584 g002
Applsci 14 05584 g003
Figure 3. Relative peak power (rPPO) in subsequent repetitions during the SIE session. * statistically significant difference in the first repetition of the 1st series (p < 0.05) between SIE7.5% and SIE10%.
Figure 3. Relative peak power (rPPO) in subsequent repetitions during the SIE session. * statistically significant difference in the first repetition of the 1st series (p < 0.05) between SIE7.5% and SIE10%.
Applsci 14 05584 g003
Applsci 14 05584 g004
Figure 4. Time to achieve PPO (tPPO) in subsequent SIE repetitions. # statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in the second repetition of the 2nd series between SIE7.5% and SIE10%.
Figure 4. Time to achieve PPO (tPPO) in subsequent SIE repetitions. # statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in the second repetition of the 2nd series between SIE7.5% and SIE10%.
Applsci 14 05584 g004
Table 1. Values of selected parameters characterizing the participants.
Table 1. Values of selected parameters characterizing the participants.
Values x ¯ (SD)95%CI
Body height (m)1.81 (0.08)1.76–1.86
Body mass (kg)77.9 (10.6)71.1–84.6
Physical activity (h∙week−1)7.8 (1.6)6.7–8.8
SBP (mm Hg)123 (10)117–130
DBP (mm Hg)70 (7)65–75
RBC (106∙mm−3)5.1 (0.5)4.8–5.4
HGB (gL∙dL−1)15.2 (0.8)14.7–15.7
Hct (%)44.2 (3.1)42.3–46.2
VO2max(ml∙kg−1∙min−1)52.4 (7.8)47.4–57.4
MAP (W)341.0 (41.4)314.6–367.3
VEmax (L∙min−1) 148.7 (21.1)135.3–162.1
VTmax (L) 3.4 (0.5)3.1–3.7
RFmax (breath∙min−1)50.8 (7.6)46.0–55.6
HRmax (beats∙min−1)193 (7)189–198
pH (−log[H+])7.2 (0.1)7.2–7.3
La− (mmol∙L−1)12.8 (1.8)11.6–13.9
CI—confidence interval; SBP—systolic blood pressure; DBP—diastolic blood pressure; RBC—erythrocytes; HGB—hemoglobin concentration; Hct—hematocrit; VO2max—maximal oxygen uptake; MAP—maximal aerobic power; VEmax—maximal pulmonary ventilation; VTmax—maximal tidal volume; RFmax—maximal breathing frequency; HRmax—maximal heart rate; pH—acid-base balance index; La−—blood lactate concentration.
Table 2. Comparison of mean and peak values of selected variables obtained in both SIE protocols (SIE7.5% vs. SIE10%).
Table 2. Comparison of mean and peak values of selected variables obtained in both SIE protocols (SIE7.5% vs. SIE10%).
ValuesSIE7.5%SIE10%t-TestES
VEpeak (L∙min−1)154.6 ± 5.3154.8 ± 9.2−0.030.1
VEmean (L∙min−1)79.4 ± 7.975.4 ± 7.91.2−0.5
VO2peak (mL∙kg−1∙min−1)47.7 ± 6.047.4 ± 6.00.1−0.1
VO2mean (mL∙kg−1∙min−1)29.1 ± 2.326.0 * ± 1.43.9−1.6
VTpeak (L)3.7 ± 0.73.4 ± 0.31.6−0.6
VTmean (L)2.5 ± 0.42.3 ± 0.41.6−0.5
HRpeak (beats·min−1)186 ± 6188 ± 6−1.60.3
HRmean (beats·min−1)152 ± 10150 * ± 102.4−0.2
T (°C) 36.1 ± 0.336.2 ± 0.4−0.80.3
La− mean (mmol∙L−1)12.6 ± 1.013.1 ± 2.1−1.31.2
RPEmean (AU)19 ± 117 ± 2 *3.1−1.3
Parameters are presented as arithmetic mean and standard deviation ( x ¯ ± SD), peak or mean. VO2—oxygen uptake; VE-pulmonary minute ventilation; VT—tidal volume; HR—heart rate; T—body temperature after the last sprint; La—lactate concentration after the first and second series of the SIE; RPE—rating of perceived exertion based on the Borg scale. * statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between SIE7.5% and SIE10%.
Table 3. Physical parameters obtained during repeated sprints in the SIE7.5% and SIE10% condition.
Table 3. Physical parameters obtained during repeated sprints in the SIE7.5% and SIE10% condition.
ValuesSIE7.5%SIE10%t-TestES
Wtot (kJ)7.0 (1.2)7.5 (0.6)−1.40.5
WtotIS (kJ)7.0 (1.2)7.7 (0.7)−1.70.7
WtotIIS (kJ)6.9 (1.3)7.2 (0.6)−0.90.3
FIIS (%)7.3 (2.5)10.6 * (2.6)−3.41.3
FIIIS (%)8.7 (3.1)10.3 (5.0)−1.10.4
tPPOIS (s)3.4 (0.6)3.5 (0.5)−0.50.2
tPPOIIS (s)3.9 (0.6)3.7 * (0.5)0.7−0.4
Rpm (repetition∙min−1)145.3 (5.5)147.2 (7.4)−0.60.3
Wtot—average of the sum of total work in SIE series I and II; WtotIS—average of the sum of total work in SIE series I; WtotIIS—average of the sum of work in SIE series II; FIIS—fatigue index in SIE series I; FIIIS—fatigue index in SIE series II; tPPOIS—the fastest time to achieve PPO in the 1st series; tPPOIIS—the fastest time to achieve PPO in the 2nd series; Rpm—the highest repetition per minute * statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between SIE7.5% and SIE10%.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Danek, N.; Hebisz, P.; Zatoń, M. Physiological, Mechanical, and Perceptual Responses to Comparing 7.5% and 10% Body Mass Load during the Cycling Sprint Interval Exercise in Physically Active Men. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5584. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135584

AMA Style

Danek N, Hebisz P, Zatoń M. Physiological, Mechanical, and Perceptual Responses to Comparing 7.5% and 10% Body Mass Load during the Cycling Sprint Interval Exercise in Physically Active Men. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(13):5584. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135584

Chicago/Turabian Style

Danek, Natalia, Paulina Hebisz, and Marek Zatoń. 2024. "Physiological, Mechanical, and Perceptual Responses to Comparing 7.5% and 10% Body Mass Load during the Cycling Sprint Interval Exercise in Physically Active Men" Applied Sciences 14, no. 13: 5584. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135584

APA Style

Danek, N., Hebisz, P., & Zatoń, M. (2024). Physiological, Mechanical, and Perceptual Responses to Comparing 7.5% and 10% Body Mass Load during the Cycling Sprint Interval Exercise in Physically Active Men. Applied Sciences, 14(13), 5584. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135584

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop