Endurance, aerobic high-intensity, and repeated sprint cycling performance is unaffected by normobaric "Live High-Train Low": a double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over study.

The aim was to investigate whether 6 weeks of normobaric "Live High-Train Low" (LHTL) using altitude tents affect highly trained athletes incremental peak power, 26-km time-trial cycling performance, 3-min all-out performance, and 30-s repeated sprint ability. In a double-blinded, placebo-controlled cross-over design, seven highly trained triathletes were exposed to 6 weeks of normobaric hypoxia (LHTL) and normoxia (placebo) for 8 h/day. LHTL exposure consisted of 2 weeks at 2500 m, 2 weeks at 3000 m, and 2 weeks at 3500 m. Power output during an incremental test, ~26-km time trial, 3-min all-out exercise, and 8 × 30 s of all-out sprint was evaluated before and after the intervention. Following at least 8 weeks of wash-out, the subjects crossed over and repeated the procedure. Incremental peak power output was similar after both interventions [LHTL: 375 ± 74 vs. 369 ± 70 W (pre-vs-post), placebo: 385 ± 60 vs. 364 ± 79 W (pre-vs-post)]. Likewise, mean power output was similar between treatments as well as before and after each intervention for time trial [LHTL: 257 ± 49 vs. 254 ± 54 W (pre-vs-post), placebo: 267 ± 57 vs. 267 ± 52 W (pre-vs-post)], and 3-min all-out [LHTL: 366 ± 68 vs. 369 ± 72 W (pre-vs-post), placebo: 365 ± 66 vs. 355 ± 71 W (pre-vs-post)]. Furthermore, peak- and mean power output during repeated sprint exercise was similar between groups at all time points (n = 5). In conclusion, 6 weeks of normobaric LHTL using altitude tents simulating altitudes of 2500-3500 m conducted in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled cross-over design do not affect power output during an incremental test, a ~26-km time-trial test, or 3-min all-out exercise in highly trained triathletes. Furthermore, 30 s of repeated sprint ability was unaltered.

Effects of 12 weeks high-intensity & reduced-volume training in elite athletes.

It was investigated if high-intensity interval training (HIT) at the expense of total training volume improves performance, maximal oxygen uptake and swimming economy. 41 elite swimmers were randomly allocated to a control (CON) or HIT group. For 12 weeks both groups trained ∼12 h per week. HIT comprised ∼5 h vs. 1 h and total distance was ∼17 km vs. 35 km per week for HIT and CON, respectively. HIT was performed as 6-10×10-30 s maximal effort interspersed by 2-4 minutes of rest. Performance of 100 m all-out freestyle and 200 m freestyle was similar before and after the intervention in both HIT (60.4±4.0 vs. 60.3±4.0 s; n = 13 and 133.2±6.4 vs. 132.6±7.7 s; n = 14) and CON (60.2±3.7 vs. 60.6±3.8 s; n = 15 and 133.5±7.0 vs. 133.3±7.6 s; n = 15). Maximal oxygen uptake during swimming was similar before and after the intervention in both the HIT (4.0±0.9 vs. 3.8±1.0 l O2×min-1; n = 14) and CON (3.8±0.7 vs. 3.8±0.7 l O2×min-1; n = 11) group. Oxygen uptake determined at fixed submaximal speed was not significantly affected in either group by the intervention. Body fat % tended to increase (P = 0.09) in the HIT group (15.4±1.6% vs. 16.3±1.6%; P = 0.09; n = 16) and increased (P<0.05) in the CON group (13.9±1.5% vs. 14.9±1.5%; n = 17). A distance reduction of 50% and a more than doubled HIT amount for 12 weeks did neither improve nor compromise performance or physiological capacity in elite swimmers.