Physiological and Biomechanical Responses Induced by a Continuous Test and an Intermittent Test in Middle-Distance Runners.

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 PHYSIOLOGY
Saddek Benhammou, Filipe Manuel Clemente, Laurent Mourot, Adel Belkadi
{"title":"Physiological and Biomechanical Responses Induced by a Continuous Test and an Intermittent Test in Middle-Distance Runners.","authors":"Saddek Benhammou, Filipe Manuel Clemente, Laurent Mourot, Adel Belkadi","doi":"10.1123/ijspp.2024-0350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to examine middle-distance runners' acute physiological and biomechanical responses to 2 maximal aerobic speed tests: an intermittent test (5 × 1 mintest) and a continuous test (University of Montreal Track Test [UM-TT]).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty trained male middle-distance runners completed the UM-TT and 5 × 1 mintest on separate days. The rating of perceived exertion, peak heart rate, and maximal aerobic speed of both tests (VUM-TT and V5 ×1m) were analyzed. Heart-rate variability (time and frequency domain) and spatiotemporal parameters were measured preexercise and postexercise at 5, 30, and 60 minutes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No differences were found between VUM-TT and V5×1m (18.4 [1.0] vs 18.5 [0.9] km·h-1, r = .88, P = .14). Peak heart rate was similar between tests (UM-TT: 188.6 [4] beats·min-1 vs 5 × 1 mintest: 189 [2] beats·min-1, r = .63, P = .23). Rating of perceived exertion was higher in UM-TT (UM-TT: 8.1 [0.5] vs 5 × 1 mintest: 7.6 [0.7], r = .47, P = .009). For both tests, heart-rate-variability parameters indicated higher sympathetic/lower parasympathetic activity compared with baseline at all time points (P < .001), without differences between tests. Stride frequency and duty factor increased postexercise (P < .05), with no changes in contact time and stride time (P > .05), without differences between the 2 tests.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both tests significantly changed heart-rate variability and biomechanical parameters, with no differences between the tests. As 5 × 1 mintest was perceived as less demanding, it may be a less taxing alternative for assessing maximal aerobic speed in middle-distance runners.</p>","PeriodicalId":14295,"journal":{"name":"International journal of sports physiology and performance","volume":" ","pages":"638-643"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of sports physiology and performance","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2024-0350","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to examine middle-distance runners' acute physiological and biomechanical responses to 2 maximal aerobic speed tests: an intermittent test (5 × 1 mintest) and a continuous test (University of Montreal Track Test [UM-TT]).

Methods: Twenty trained male middle-distance runners completed the UM-TT and 5 × 1 mintest on separate days. The rating of perceived exertion, peak heart rate, and maximal aerobic speed of both tests (VUM-TT and V5 ×1m) were analyzed. Heart-rate variability (time and frequency domain) and spatiotemporal parameters were measured preexercise and postexercise at 5, 30, and 60 minutes.

Results: No differences were found between VUM-TT and V5×1m (18.4 [1.0] vs 18.5 [0.9] km·h-1, r = .88, P = .14). Peak heart rate was similar between tests (UM-TT: 188.6 [4] beats·min-1 vs 5 × 1 mintest: 189 [2] beats·min-1, r = .63, P = .23). Rating of perceived exertion was higher in UM-TT (UM-TT: 8.1 [0.5] vs 5 × 1 mintest: 7.6 [0.7], r = .47, P = .009). For both tests, heart-rate-variability parameters indicated higher sympathetic/lower parasympathetic activity compared with baseline at all time points (P < .001), without differences between tests. Stride frequency and duty factor increased postexercise (P < .05), with no changes in contact time and stride time (P > .05), without differences between the 2 tests.

Conclusions: Both tests significantly changed heart-rate variability and biomechanical parameters, with no differences between the tests. As 5 × 1 mintest was perceived as less demanding, it may be a less taxing alternative for assessing maximal aerobic speed in middle-distance runners.

中长跑运动员连续测试和间歇测试引起的生理和生物力学反应。
目的:本研究旨在研究中长跑运动员对2种最大有氧速度测试的急性生理和生物力学反应:间歇测试(5 × 1分钟测试)和连续测试(蒙特利尔大学田径测试[UM-TT])。方法:20名训练有素的男性中长跑运动员在不同的日子完成UM-TT和5 × 1分钟测试。分析两项测试(VUM-TT和V5 ×1m)的感知运动评分、峰值心率和最大有氧速度。在运动前和运动后5,30和60分钟测量心率变异性(时间和频域)和时空参数。结果:VUM-TT与V5×1m无差异(18.4 [1.0]vs 18.5 [0.9] km·h-1, r = 0.88, P = 0.14)。两组试验的峰值心率相似(UM-TT: 188.6[2]次·min-1 vs 5 × 1分钟试验:189[2]次·min-1, r = 0.63, P = 0.23)。UM-TT组感觉劳累程度评分较高(UM-TT: 8.1 [0.5] vs 5 × 1 min: 7.6 [0.7], r = 0.47, P = 0.009)。在这两项测试中,心率变异性参数显示在所有时间点与基线相比交感/副交感神经活动更高/更低(P < 0.001),测试之间无差异。运动后步频和负荷因子增加(P < 0.05),接触时间和步幅时间无变化(P < 0.05),两组试验无差异。结论:两种试验均能显著改变心率变异性和生物力学参数,两种试验之间无差异。由于5 × 1分钟被认为要求较低,它可能是评估中长跑运动员最大有氧速度的一种较不费力的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
12.10%
发文量
199
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (IJSPP) focuses on sport physiology and performance and is dedicated to advancing the knowledge of sport and exercise physiologists, sport-performance researchers, and other sport scientists. The journal publishes authoritative peer-reviewed research in sport physiology and related disciplines, with an emphasis on work having direct practical applications in enhancing sport performance in sport physiology and related disciplines. IJSPP publishes 10 issues per year: January, February, March, April, May, July, August, September, October, and November.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信