Eur J Appl Physiol DOI 10.

1007/s00421-010-1474-y

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

10 or 30-s sprint interval training bouts enhance both aerobic and 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 can improve 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 performance (P \ 0.05) in the 30:4 (5.2%), 10:4 (3.5%), and
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: thazell@uwo.ca R. E. K. MacPherson e-mail: rmacpher@uwo.ca B. M. R. Gravelle e-mail: bgravell@uwo.ca P. W. R. Lemon e-mail: plemon@uwo.ca

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 peak power 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 in VO2max and 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 Scardina 1984; 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 rst 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 rst 10 s (generation of peak power), the entire 30 s (attempted maintenance of a high power output), or the length of the recovery period

123

Eur J Appl Physiol

between repeats is unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the established, effective SIT protocol (30 s all-out efforts with 4 min recovery) versus two modied 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.

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). Briey, 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 the expected increase for the workload). The other ve 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. 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 a computer 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. Wingate anaerobic cycle test: A 30-s Wingate anaerobic 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 encouragement was provided for the remainder of the 30-s test. Peak power (highest power output over any 5-s

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 participate (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 to any participation, the experimental procedures and potential risks were explained fully to the subjects and all provided 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, and VO2max. This study was approved by the University of Western Ontario Ethics Committee for Research on Human Subjects. Study design Participants completed 2-weeks of cycle training (3 session 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, posttesting occurred within 7296 h of the nal 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.

2.

3.

123

Eur J Appl Physiol

4.

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). 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 Aitkens 1995; Noreen and Lemon 2006). Briey, participants wore approved clothing, i.e., tight swimsuit or compression 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 (Siri 1961).

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 peak 9 100). 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 and completed within 4896 h after the nal 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) repeated measures ANOVA were used to test signicance among groups pre- and post-training, with Tukeys post hoc testing, where necessary. One-way ANOVA were also used to test for signicant differences in training intensities (reproducibility of peak power output, average power output, and total work output) among groups. The signicance level was set at P \ 0.05. All data are presented as mean standard deviation (SD).

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). Group 10 s:4 min: Performed repeated, 10 s all-out efforts separated by 4 min of active recovery (unloaded cycling). Group 10 s:2 min: Performed repeated, 10 s all-out efforts separated by 2 min of active recovery (unloaded cycling). Training progression was accomplished by increasing the number of repeats from four repetitions during the rst two training sessions, to ve repetitions during the middle two training sessions, and then to six repetitions for the nal 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

Results Time trial The 5-km cycling time trial was completed in approximately 9.5 min for all groups at baseline (P = 0.620). All three training groups improved their time trial performance signicantly 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 performance gains were signicantly 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 signicant difference in the baseline values among groups (P = 0.627) but there was a signicant interaction 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 the 30 s:4 min group and 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 signicance

123

Eur J Appl Physiol

5 km Time Trial Performance (sec)
900 850 800 750

Relative Peak Power Output (Wkg -1)

20

18

16
700 650 600 550 500 450 0 0 2 weeks 0 2 weeks 0 2 weeks 0 2 weeks

**
14

**

**

12

*
10

0 0 2 weeks 0 2 weeks 0 2 weeks 0 2 weeks

30:4

10:4

10:2

CONTROL

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 signicantly while the control group did not change. **P \ 0.001, *P \ 0.03
VO2max (mlkg min )
70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 0 0 2 weeks 0 2 weeks 0 2 weeks 0 2 weeks
-1 -1

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

** **

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 signicantly 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 similar among groups (P = 0.383) and there was a signicant 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 signicance (P = 0.136). None of these changes were signicantly 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 signicant 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 signicantly greater (P \ 0.001) than the 89% observed for the 30 s:4 min group.

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 signicantly while the 10:2 approached signicance. The control group did not change. **P \ 0.001, P = 0.06

(3.8%; 1.8 ml kg-1 min-1; P = 0.06). There were no signicant 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 signicant difference in baseline relative peak power output among groups (P = 0.437), but there was a signicant interaction with time (training group vs. time;

123

Eur J Appl Physiol

Relative Average Power Output (Wkg -1)
12

11

10

**

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 signicantly 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 signicantly more total work (P \ 0.009) during the 46 bouts per training session than either 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

5 0 0 2 weeks 0 2 weeks 0 2 weeks 0 2 weeks

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 signicantly while the 10:2 and the control group did not change. **P \ 0.001, *P \ 0.03
Training Session Training Session Training Session Average Power Minumum Power Peak Power Output (%) Output (%) Output (%)
100

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
100

**

80

80

60

**

60

**
40 40

30 :4 10: 4 10:2

30:4 10:4 10 :2

30: 4 10: 4 10 :2

Fig. 5 Reproducibility of peak, average, and minimum power during the training sessions. The 30 s:4 min maintained signicantly 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

Similarly, there was a signicant 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 signicantly 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 signicant difference in the minimum power output observed during the training sessions (P \ 0.001; Fig. 5).

Recent studies utilizing SIT (repeated maximal 30-s efforts with 4 min recovery) have reported signicant 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 adaptations 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 benet 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 anaerobic 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

123

Eur J Appl Physiol

improvements versus the 30 s protocol because, of course, the peak power occurs during the rst 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 modied SIT protocols (10 s:4 min and 10 s:2 min) produced similar and signicant 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 rst few seconds of each training bout is more likely responsible for the SIT adaptations than the total work completed. As expected, the training session peak power generation (% 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 nd the 10 s efforts less difcult 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 efcient versus more traditional endurance training, signicant performance 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 tness 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. Specically, 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 phosphorylation 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 signicant acute challenge 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 glycolysis with continuous exercise. This reloading of myoglobin with oxygen phenomenon could also contribute to the aerobic improvement observed with all three types of SIT 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 signicantly increased with training in the 10 s:2 min group (2.9%). This result is consistent with a greater reliance on glycolysis during training in the 30-s group and could explain at least partially why the more intense 10-s repeats seemed less difcult. 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 sufcient 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).

123

Eur J Appl Physiol

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 substantial interest is our observation that many of the same performance gains occurred in our two modied SIT protocols, 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 another 50%. 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 modied 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 these SIT 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. Consequently, 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 adaptations 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: inuence 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) Contribution 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 shortterm sprint interval training on human skeletal muscle carbohydrate 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 following sprint training in humans. J Appl Physiol 89:17931803 Laursen PB, Jenkins DG (2002) The scientic basis for high-intensity interval training: optimising training programmes and maximising 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 adaptations 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 60:11641169 Noreen 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 uid 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

123

Eur J Appl Physiol 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) Inuence 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) Effectiveness 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

123