Title |
Different Training Modalities Improve Energy Cost and Performance in Master Runners
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2018
|
DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2018.00021 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Lorenzo Pugliese, Simone Porcelli, Alessandra Vezzoli, Antonio La Torre, Fabio R. Serpiello, Gaspare Pavei, Mauro Marzorati |
Abstract |
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of continuous moderate-intensity and discontinuous high-intensity training on running performance in master runners. Methods: Thirty-four male master runners (47.2 ± 7.4 years) were assigned to three different groups: continuous moderate-intensity training (CMIT), discontinuous high-intensity training (DHIT), and control group (CON). CMIT and DHIT performed 8-week of supervised training (3 session·wk-1; ~35 km·wk-1) while CON maintained their normal training habits (3-4 session·wk-1; ~50 km·wk-1). Peak oxygen consumption ([Formula: see text]O2peak) and peak running speed (vpeak) during incremental treadmill exercise, gas exchange threshold (GET), speed at GET, energy cost of running (Cr), and 5-km performance were evaluated before and after training. Results: Following the training period, both CMIT and DHIT significantly reduced Cr (-4.4 and -4.9%, respectively, P < 0.05), increased speed at GET (3.4 and 5.7%, P < 0.05) and improved 5-km time-trial performance (3.1 and 2.2%, P < 0.05) whereas no differences were found for [Formula: see text]O2peak and GET (as %[Formula: see text]O2peak). After training, vpeak improved only for DHIT (6%, P < 0.05). No differences were found in any variable for CON. Conclusions: This study indicates that both CMIT and DHIT may positively affect running performance in middle-aged master runners. This improvement was achieved despite a significant reduction of the amount of weekly training volume. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 7 | 15% |
United States | 5 | 11% |
Spain | 5 | 11% |
Ireland | 2 | 4% |
Brazil | 2 | 4% |
Switzerland | 2 | 4% |
Australia | 2 | 4% |
France | 1 | 2% |
Germany | 1 | 2% |
Other | 4 | 9% |
Unknown | 15 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 28 | 61% |
Scientists | 15 | 33% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 4% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 10 | 16% |
Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
Other | 4 | 6% |
Other | 13 | 21% |
Unknown | 20 | 32% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Sports and Recreations | 21 | 33% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 11% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
Other | 4 | 6% |
Unknown | 23 | 37% |