Effects of plyometric- and cycle-based high-intensity interval training on body composition, aerobic capacity, and muscle function in young females: a field-based group fitness assessment.

High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is an effective alternative to moderate intensity continuous training for improvements in body composition and aerobic capacity; however, there is little work comparing different modalities of HIIT. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of plyometric- (PLYO) and cycle-oriented (CYC) HIIT on body composition, aerobic capacity, and skeletal muscle size, quality, and function in recreationally trained females. Young (21.7 ± 3.1 yrs), recreationally active females were quasi-randomized (1:1 ratio) to 8 weeks of twice weekly PLYO (n = 15) or CYC (n = 15) HIIT. Body composition (four-compartment model), VO2peak, countermovement jump performance, muscle size, and echo intensity (muscle quality), as well as strength and power of the knee extensors and plantar flexors were measured before and after training. Both groups showed a similar decrease in body fat percentage (p < 0.001; η p 2   = 0.409) and echo intensity (p < 0.001; η p 2 = 0.558), and an increase in fat-free mass (p < 0.001; η p 2   = 0.367) and VO2peak (p = 0.001; η p 2 = 0.318). Muscle size was unaffected (p > 0.05), whereas peak torque was reduced similarly in both groups (p = 0.017; η p 2 = 0.188) and rapid torque capacity was diminished only for the knee extensors after CYC (p = 0.022; d = -0.67). These results suggest that PLYO and CYC HIIT are similarly effective for improving body composition, aerobic capacity, and muscle quality, whereas muscle function may express moderate decrements in recreationally active females. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05821504).

EFFECT OF ENERGY DRINKS ON SELECTED FINE MOTOR TASKS.

This study assessed the effect of energy shots on selected fine motor tasks. The participants were college-age male (n=19; M age=20.5 yr., SD=0.7) and female (n=21; M age=21.1 yr., SD=0.7) volunteers who were assessed on hand steadiness, choice reaction time, rotary pursuit, and simple reaction time. The energy shots group scored significantly poorer on the hand steadiness tests and significantly better on choice reaction time and simple reaction time tests. The enhanced reaction time and disruption in hand steadiness afforded by energy shots would not be apparent in many gross motor activities, but it is possible that reaction time improvement could be beneficial in sports that require quick, reflexive movements. However, the potential adverse psychological and physiological effects warrant discretionary use of such products.