Jessica S Smith, Gabriella F Bellissimo, Fabiano T Amorim
{"title":"The physiological responses to volume-matched high-intensity functional training protocols with varied time domains.","authors":"Jessica S Smith, Gabriella F Bellissimo, Fabiano T Amorim","doi":"10.3389/fphys.2024.1511961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-intensity functional training (HIFT) is typically performed with minimal or no rest periods, including \"rounds for time\" (RFT) or \"as many rounds or repetitions as possible\" (AMRAP) design. Alternatively, some HIFT workouts can be performed with prescribed rest intervals (e.g., \"every minute on the minute\" [EMOM]) that may have significant effects on physiological responses.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the physiological responses between two different HIFT workouts (EMOM and RFT) that were matched for total work volume (TWV).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twelve trained individuals (six males and six females) performed two HIFT protocols, EMOM and RFT. Both the EMOM and RFT included five rounds of five power cleans, eight kipping pull-ups, six dumbbell thrusters, and ten burpees performed in this order. Measurements of heart rate (HR), oxygen consumption (VO<sub>2</sub>), rating of perceived exertion (RPE) (1-10 scale), blood lactate (BLA), creatine kinase (CK), excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC), and muscle oxygen saturation (SmO<sub>2</sub>) were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Time domains were significantly different for the EMOM and RFT workouts (20 vs. 12 min ± 3 min, <i>p</i> < 0.00). There were significant differences between the EMOM and RFT for HR (153 ± 19 bpm vs. 171 ± 12 bpm, <i>p</i> < 0.01), VO<sub>2</sub> (30.8 ± 3 mL/kg/min vs. 38.1 ± 5 mL/kg/min, <i>p</i> < 0.00), RPE (4 ± 1 vs. 7 ± 1, <i>p</i> < 0.00), and EPOC-AUC (3.5 ± 1.2 mL/kg/min vs. 5.0 ± 1.3 mL/kg/min, <i>p</i> < 0.00); however, there were no significant differences in mean SmO<sub>2</sub> (<i>p</i> = 0.44). An interaction effect revealed that BLA was lower for the EMOM (6.5 ± 2.7 mmol/L) than the RFT (11.2 ± 2.1 mmol/L) post-exercise (<i>p</i> < 0.00). Conversely, there was no interaction effect for CK (<i>p</i> < 0.16), yet a significant increase was observed from pre- to post-exercise for both the EMOM and the RFT (<i>p</i> < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The RFT induced greater physiological stress than the EMOM, indicating that prescribed rest intervals significantly affect the metabolic, cardiovascular, and perceptual responses during high-intensity functional exercise. Furthermore, the RFT may provide a greater cardiorespiratory stimulus, while the EMOM may be more suitable for technique development and recovery in trained individuals.</p>","PeriodicalId":12477,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Physiology","volume":"15 ","pages":"1511961"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11850382/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2024.1511961","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: High-intensity functional training (HIFT) is typically performed with minimal or no rest periods, including "rounds for time" (RFT) or "as many rounds or repetitions as possible" (AMRAP) design. Alternatively, some HIFT workouts can be performed with prescribed rest intervals (e.g., "every minute on the minute" [EMOM]) that may have significant effects on physiological responses.
Purpose: To compare the physiological responses between two different HIFT workouts (EMOM and RFT) that were matched for total work volume (TWV).
Methods: Twelve trained individuals (six males and six females) performed two HIFT protocols, EMOM and RFT. Both the EMOM and RFT included five rounds of five power cleans, eight kipping pull-ups, six dumbbell thrusters, and ten burpees performed in this order. Measurements of heart rate (HR), oxygen consumption (VO2), rating of perceived exertion (RPE) (1-10 scale), blood lactate (BLA), creatine kinase (CK), excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC), and muscle oxygen saturation (SmO2) were performed.
Results: Time domains were significantly different for the EMOM and RFT workouts (20 vs. 12 min ± 3 min, p < 0.00). There were significant differences between the EMOM and RFT for HR (153 ± 19 bpm vs. 171 ± 12 bpm, p < 0.01), VO2 (30.8 ± 3 mL/kg/min vs. 38.1 ± 5 mL/kg/min, p < 0.00), RPE (4 ± 1 vs. 7 ± 1, p < 0.00), and EPOC-AUC (3.5 ± 1.2 mL/kg/min vs. 5.0 ± 1.3 mL/kg/min, p < 0.00); however, there were no significant differences in mean SmO2 (p = 0.44). An interaction effect revealed that BLA was lower for the EMOM (6.5 ± 2.7 mmol/L) than the RFT (11.2 ± 2.1 mmol/L) post-exercise (p < 0.00). Conversely, there was no interaction effect for CK (p < 0.16), yet a significant increase was observed from pre- to post-exercise for both the EMOM and the RFT (p < 0.01).
Conclusion: The RFT induced greater physiological stress than the EMOM, indicating that prescribed rest intervals significantly affect the metabolic, cardiovascular, and perceptual responses during high-intensity functional exercise. Furthermore, the RFT may provide a greater cardiorespiratory stimulus, while the EMOM may be more suitable for technique development and recovery in trained individuals.
期刊介绍:
Frontiers in Physiology is a leading journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research on the physiology of living systems, from the subcellular and molecular domains to the intact organism, and its interaction with the environment. Field Chief Editor George E. Billman at the Ohio State University Columbus is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide.