The current study sought to explore the incidence of nonresponders for maximal or submaximal performance following a variety of sprint interval training (SIT) protocols. Data from 63 young adults from 5 previously published studies were utilized in the current analysis. Nonresponders were identified using 2 times the typical error (TE) of measurement for peak oxygen uptake (2 × TE = 1.74 mL/(kg·min)), lactate threshold (2 × TE = 15.7 W), or 500 kcal time-to-completion (TTC; 2 × TE = 306 s) trial. TE was determined on separate groups of participants by calculating the test-retest variance for each outcome. The overall rate of nonresponders for peak oxygen uptake across all participants studied was 22% (14/63) with 4 adverse responders observed. No nonresponders for peak oxygen uptake were observed in studies where participants trained 4 times per week (n = 18), while higher rates were observed in most studies requiring training 3 times per week (30%-50%; n = 45). A nonresponse rate of 44% (8/18) and 50% (11/22) was observed for the TTC test and lactate threshold, respectively. No significant correlations were observed between the changes in peak oxygen uptake and TTC (r = 0.014; p = 0.96) or lactate threshold (r = 0.17; p = 0.44). The current analysis demonstrates a significant incidence of nonresponders for peak oxygen uptake and heterogeneity in the individual patterns of response following SIT. Additionally, these data support the importance of training dose and suggest that the incidence of nonresponse may be mitigated by utilizing the optimal dose of SIT.
ObjectiveThe purpose of this research was to determine if the adaptations to high intensity interval training (HIT) are mitigated when both intensity and training volume (i.e. exercise energy expenditure) are reduced.Methods19 overweight/obese, sedentary males (Age: 22.7±3.9 yrs, Body Mass Index: 31.4±2.6 kg/m2, Waist Circumference: 106.5±6.6 cm) performed 9 sessions of interval training using a 1-min on, 1-min off protocol on a cycle ergometer over three weeks at either 70% (LO) or 100% (HI) peak work rate.ResultsCytochrome oxidase I protein content, cytochrome oxidase IV protein content, and citrate synthase maximal activity all demonstrated similar increases between groups with a significant effect of training for each. β-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase maximal activity tended to increase with training but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.07). Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator-1α and silent mating type information regulator 2 homolog 1 protein contents also increased significantly (p = 0.047), while AMP-activated protein kinase protein content decreased following the intervention (p = 0.019). VO2peak increased by 11.0±7.4% and 27.7±4.4% in the LO and HI groups respectively with significant effects of both training (p<0.001) and interaction (p = 0.027). Exercise performance improved by 8.6±7.6% in the LO group and 14.1±4.3% in the HI group with a significant effect of training and a significant difference in the improvement between groups. There were no differences in perceived enjoyment or self-efficacy between groups despite significantly lower affect scores during training in the HI group.ConclusionsWhile improvements in aerobic capacity and exercise performance were different between groups, changes in oxidative capacity were similar despite reductions in both training intensity and volume.
Ultrasound-guided TAPB did not improve postoperative pain, quality of recovery, or opioid consumption 24 hr following surgery. Similar health and functioning (SF-36) at 30 days and six months were reported by both groups. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01261637.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.