↓ Skip to main content

High Intensity Interval Training in Handcycling: The Effects of a 7 Week Training Intervention in Able-bodied Men

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
High Intensity Interval Training in Handcycling: The Effects of a 7 Week Training Intervention in Able-bodied Men
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00638
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick Schoenmakers, Kate Reed, Luc Van Der Woude, Florentina J. Hettinga

Abstract

Introduction: In lower body endurance training, quantities of both moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) and high intensity interval training (HIIT) can lead to an improved physiological capacity and performance. Limited research is available regarding the endurance and muscular capacity of the upper body, and how training contributes to improvements in performance capacity is still unknown. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effects of HIIT and MICT on the physiological capacity and handcycling performance of able-bodied men in a well-controlled laboratory setting. Methods: Twenty four recreationally active men (22 ± 2 years; 1.84 ± 0.04 m; 79 ± 10 kg) were matched on incremental handcycling pre-test performance (peakPO) and then randomly assigned to HIIT, MICT, or a non-training control group (CON, 3 × n = 8). Participants in HIIT completed 14 interval training sessions, performing 4 × 4 min intervals at 85% heart rate reserve (%HRR), and seven continuous training sessions at 55 %HRR (every 2nd training session of the week). Participants in MICT performed 21 training sessions of 30 min at 55 %HRR. After the intervention, changes in peak oxygen uptake (peakVO2) and peak power output (peakPO) were compared within and between HIIT, MICT and CON. Results: The average external training load per training session did not differ between MICT and HIIT (p = 0.713). Improvements after HIIT in peakVO2 (22.2 ± 8.1%) and peakPO (47.1 ± 20.7%) were significantly larger compared with MICT and CON (p < 0.001). Improvements after MICT in peakVO2 (10.7 ± 12.9%) and peakPO (32.2 ± 8.1%) were higher compared to CON (p < 0.001). Higher improvement after HIIT occurred despite training 22% less time than MICT. No significant changes were found in CON. Discussion: As in lower body endurance sports, HIIT proved to be very effective in improving the physiological and performance capacity of upper body exercise. Whilst physiological capacity in both training groups improved significantly compared with CON, the present study shows that peakVO2 and peakPO improved more after HIIT than after MICT in able-bodied men. It is advised to include HIIT into training regimes of recreational and competitive handcyclists to improve the upper body endurance capacity.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 24 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 27 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Engineering 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 28 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 January 2017.
All research outputs
#6,313,881
of 22,908,162 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#2,972
of 13,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,765
of 419,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#59
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,908,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 220 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.