↓ Skip to main content

No Additional Benefits of Block- Over Evenly-Distributed High-Intensity Interval Training within a Polarized Microcycle

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
54 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
No Additional Benefits of Block- Over Evenly-Distributed High-Intensity Interval Training within a Polarized Microcycle
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00413
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kerry McGawley, Elisabeth Juudas, Zuzanna Kazior, Kristoffer Ström, Eva Blomstrand, Ola Hansson, Hans-Christer Holmberg

Abstract

Introduction: The current study aimed to investigate the responses to block- versus evenly-distributed high-intensity interval training (HIT) within a polarized microcycle. Methods: Twenty well-trained junior cross-country skiers (10 males, age 17.6 ± 1.5 and 10 females, age 17.3 ± 1.5) completed two, 3-week periods of training (EVEN and BLOCK) in a randomized, crossover-design study. In EVEN, 3 HIT sessions (5 × 4-min of diagonal-stride roller-skiing) were completed at a maximal sustainable intensity each week while low-intensity training (LIT) was distributed evenly around the HIT. In BLOCK, the same 9 HIT sessions were completed in the second week while only LIT was completed in the first and third weeks. Heart rate (HR), session ratings of perceived exertion (sRPE), and perceived recovery (pREC) were recorded for all HIT and LIT sessions, while distance covered was recorded for each HIT interval. The recovery-stress questionnaire for athletes (RESTQ-Sport) was completed weekly. Before and after EVEN and BLOCK, resting saliva and muscle samples were collected and an incremental test and 600-m time-trial (TT) were completed. Results: Pre- to post-testing revealed no significant differences between EVEN and BLOCK for changes in resting salivary cortisol, testosterone, or IgA, or for changes in muscle capillary density, fiber area, fiber composition, enzyme activity (CS, HAD, and PFK) or the protein content of VEGF or PGC-1α. Neither were any differences observed in the changes in skiing economy, [Formula: see text] or 600-m time-trial performance between interventions. These findings were coupled with no significant differences between EVEN and BLOCK for distance covered during HIT, summated HR zone scores, total sRPE training load, overall pREC or overall recovery-stress state. However, 600-m TT performance improved from pre- to post-training, irrespective of intervention (P = 0.003), and a number of hormonal and muscle biopsy markers were also significantly altered post-training (P < 0.05). Discussion: The current study shows that well-trained junior cross-country skiers are able to complete 9 HIT sessions within 1 week without compromising total work done and without experiencing greater stress or reduced recovery over a 3-week polarized microcycle. However, the findings do not support block-distributed HIT as a superior method to a more even distribution of HIT in terms of enhancing physiological or performance adaptions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 30 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 56 46%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 29 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 17 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,236,687
of 25,503,365 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#676
of 15,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,623
of 331,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#30
of 278 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,503,365 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,677 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 331,964 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 278 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.