Modelling inter-individual variability in acute and adaptive responses to interval training: insights into exercise intensity normalisation.

PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of exercise intensity normalisation on intra- and inter-individual acute and adaptive responses to an interval training programme. METHODS: Nineteen cyclists were split in two groups differing (only) in how exercise intensity was normalised: 80% of the maximal work rate achieved in an incremental test (% W ˙ max) vs. maximal sustainable work rate in a self-paced interval training session (% W ˙ max-SP). Testing duplicates were conducted before and after an initial control phase, during the training intervention, and at the end, enabling the estimation of inter-individual variability in adaptive responses devoid of intra-individual variability. RESULTS: Due to premature exhaustion, the median training completion rate was 88.8% for the % W ˙ max group, but 100% for the % W ˙ max-SP the group. Ratings of perceived exertion and heart rates were not sensitive to how intensity was normalised, manifesting similar inter-individual variability, although intra-individual variability was minimised for the % W ˙ max-SP group. Amongst six adaptive response variables, there was evidence of individual response for only maximal oxygen uptake (standard deviation: 0.027 L·min-1·week-1) and self-paced interval training performance (standard deviation: 1.451 W·week-1). However, inter-individual variability magnitudes were similar between groups. Average adaptive responses were also similar between groups across all variables. CONCLUSIONS: To normalise completion rates of interval training, % W ˙ max-SP should be used to prescribe relative intensity. However, the variability in adaptive responses to training may not reflect how exercise intensity is normalised, underlining the complexity of the exercise dose-adaptation relationship. True inter-individual variability in adaptive responses cannot always be identified when intra-individual variability is accounted for.

Conventional methods to prescribe exercise intensity are ineffective for exhaustive interval training.

PURPOSE: To compare methods of relative intensity prescription for their ability to normalise performance (i.e., time to exhaustion), physiological, and perceptual responses to high-intensity interval training (HIIT) between individuals. METHODS: Sixteen male and two female cyclists (age: 38 ± 11 years, height: 177 ± 7 cm, body mass: 71.6 ± 7.9 kg, maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O2max): 54.3 ± 8.9 ml·kg-1 min-1) initially undertook an incremental test to exhaustion, a 3 min all-out test, and a 20 min time-trial to determine prescription benchmarks. Then, four HIIT sessions (4 min on, 2 min off) were each performed to exhaustion at: the work rate associated with the gas exchange threshold ([Formula: see text]GET) plus 70% of the difference between [Formula: see text]GET and the work rate associated with [Formula: see text]O2max; 85% of the maximal work rate of the incremental test (85%[Formula: see text]max); 120% of the mean work rate of the 20 min time-trial (120%TT); and the work rate predicted to expend, in 4 min, 80% of the work capacity above critical power. Acute HIIT responses were modelled with participant as a random effect to provide estimates of inter-individual variability. RESULTS: For all dependent variables, the magnitude of inter-individual variability was high, and confidence intervals overlapped substantially, indicating that the relative intensity normalisation methods were similarly poor. Inter-individual coefficients of variation for time to exhaustion varied from 44.2% (85%[Formula: see text]max) to 59.1% (120%TT), making it difficult to predict acute HIIT responses for an individual. CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that the methods of intensity prescription investigated do not normalise acute responses to HIIT between individuals.

Adding Intermittent Vibration to Varied-intensity Work Intervals: No Extra Benefit.

Varied-intensity work intervals have been shown to induce higher fractions of maximal oxygen uptake during high-intensity interval training compared with constant-intensity work intervals. We assessed whether varied-intensity work intervals combined with intermittent vibration could further increase cyclists' fraction of maximal oxygen uptake to potentially optimise adaptive stimulus. Thirteen cyclists (V̇O2max: 69.7±7.1 ml·kg-1·min-1) underwent a performance assessment and two high-intensity interval training sessions. Both comprised six 5-minute varied-intensity work intervals within which the work rate was alternated between 100% (3×30-second blocks, with or without vibration) and 77% of maximal aerobic power (always without vibration). Adding vibration to varied-intensity work intervals did not elicit a longer time above ninety percent of maximal oxygen uptake (415±221 versus 399±209 seconds, P=0.69). Heart rate- and perceptual-based training-load metrics were also not affected (all P≥0.59). When considering individual work intervals, no between-condition differences were found (fraction of maximal oxygen uptake, P=0.34; total oxygen uptake, P=0.053; mean minute ventilation, P=0.079; mean heart rate, P=0.88; blood lactate concentration, P=0.53; ratings of perceived exertion, P=0.29). Adding intermittent vibration to varied-intensity work intervals does not increase the fraction of maximal oxygen uptake elicited. Whether intermittent exposure to vibration can enhance cyclists' adaptive stimulus triggered by high-intensity interval training remains to be determined.

Functional Threshold Power in Cyclists: Validity of the Concept and Physiological Responses.

Functional threshold power is defined as the highest power output a cyclist can maintain in a quasi-steady state for approximately 60 min (FTP60). In order to improve practicality for regular evaluations, FTP60 could theoretically be determined as 95% of the mean power output in a 20-min time trial (FTP20). This study tested this assumption and the validity of FTP20 and FTP60 against the individual anaerobic threshold (IAT). Twenty-three trained male cyclists performed an incremental test to exhaustion, 20- and 60-min time trials, and a time to exhaustion at FTP20. Power output, heart rate and oxygen uptake representing FTP20, FTP60 and IAT were not different (p>0.05), and large to very large correlations were found (r=0.61 to 0.88). Bland-Altman plots between FTP20, FTP60 and IAT showed small bias (-1 to -5 W), but large limits of agreement ([-40 to 32 W] to [-62 to 60 W]). Time to exhaustion at FTP20 was 50.9±15.7 min. In conclusion, FTP20 and FTP60 should not be used interchangeably on an individual basis and their validity against IAT should be interpreted with caution.

Laboratory predictors of uphill cycling performance in trained cyclists.

This study aimed to assess the relationship between an uphill time-trial (TT) performance and both aerobic and anaerobic parameters obtained from laboratory tests. Fifteen cyclists performed a Wingate anaerobic test, a graded exercise test (GXT) and a field-based 20-min TT with 2.7% mean gradient. After a 5-week non-supervised training period, 10 of them performed a second TT for analysis of pacing reproducibility. Stepwise multiple regressions demonstrated that 91% of TT mean power output variation (W kg-1) could be explained by peak oxygen uptake (ml kg-1.min-1) and the respiratory compensation point (W kg-1), with standardised beta coefficients of 0.64 and 0.39, respectively. The agreement between mean power output and power at respiratory compensation point showed a bias ± random error of 16.2 ± 51.8 W or 5.7 ± 19.7%. One-way repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of the time interval (123.1 ± 8.7; 97.8 ± 1.2 and 94.0 ± 7.2% of mean power output, for epochs 0-2, 2-18 and 18-20 min, respectively; P < 0.001), characterising a positive pacing profile. This study indicates that an uphill, 20-min TT-type performance is correlated to aerobic physiological GXT variables and that cyclists adopt reproducible pacing strategies when they are tested 5 weeks apart (coefficients of variation of 6.3; 1 and 4%, for 0-2, 2-18 and 18-20 min, respectively).