The aim of the present study, as a part of RunForScience (R4S) project, was to compare three different training strategies useful to improve the limiting physiological factor of endurance performance in half and full marathon. Thirty-three amateur runners, moderately trained with a minimum of 4 years of running experience, volunteered participate to the study. Each subjects before and after 8 weeks of training performed a maximal cardiopulmonary incremental test to determine V’O2max, VAM, VT1 and VT2 by Wasserman method and they were randomly splitted on three balanced experimental training groups: high intensity training (HIT; n = 9; 42.2 ± 8.6 yy; 171.2 ± 6.8 cm; 70.9 ± 11.9 kg ; V'O2max =50.3 ± 3.7 ml*min-1*kg-1); eccentric strength training (EST; n = 11; 44.5 ± 6 yy; 168.9 ± 9.1 cm; 71.29 ± 9.40 kg; V'O2max = 48.8 ± 5.2 ml*min-1*kg-1) and control group (CTR; n = 9; 45.4 ± 8 yy; 171.8 ± 9.6 cm; 66.1 ± 11.74 kg; V'O2max = 50.2 ± 6.8 ml*min-1*kg-1). An additional small number of subjects performed the training EST in preparation of a marathon trial: (ESTmrt; n = 4; 44.5 ± 3.5 yy; 175.7 ± 3.7; 73.9 ± 13.2 kg; V'O2max = 50.0 ±2.4 ml*min-1*kg-1). VAM significantly improves (P=0.001) by +5.95% and +4.75% in EST and HIT respectively; in VT1 every groups raises +6.8% (P=0.001) in EST, +5.5% (P=0.01) in HIT and +6.2% (P=0.05) in CTR; VT2 increases by 5.3% and 5.7% (P=0.001) in EST and HIT respectively and by 5.9% (P=0.05) in CTR. Although 8 weeks of training were not enough to increase maximal aerobic power the high intensity stimulation in EST and HIT improved the maximal aerobic velocity. Similar benefits were detected in each groups in VT1 and VT2 but the different significant power seems to indicate the EST training in RunForScience project as the best choice for enhancement the aerobic threshold, the parameter most correlated with the performance in middle and long distances.
Eccentric, high or low intensity training, the best choice in RunForScience endurance performance
TARPERI, Cantor;FESTA, LUCA;SCHENA, Federico
2014-01-01
Abstract
The aim of the present study, as a part of RunForScience (R4S) project, was to compare three different training strategies useful to improve the limiting physiological factor of endurance performance in half and full marathon. Thirty-three amateur runners, moderately trained with a minimum of 4 years of running experience, volunteered participate to the study. Each subjects before and after 8 weeks of training performed a maximal cardiopulmonary incremental test to determine V’O2max, VAM, VT1 and VT2 by Wasserman method and they were randomly splitted on three balanced experimental training groups: high intensity training (HIT; n = 9; 42.2 ± 8.6 yy; 171.2 ± 6.8 cm; 70.9 ± 11.9 kg ; V'O2max =50.3 ± 3.7 ml*min-1*kg-1); eccentric strength training (EST; n = 11; 44.5 ± 6 yy; 168.9 ± 9.1 cm; 71.29 ± 9.40 kg; V'O2max = 48.8 ± 5.2 ml*min-1*kg-1) and control group (CTR; n = 9; 45.4 ± 8 yy; 171.8 ± 9.6 cm; 66.1 ± 11.74 kg; V'O2max = 50.2 ± 6.8 ml*min-1*kg-1). An additional small number of subjects performed the training EST in preparation of a marathon trial: (ESTmrt; n = 4; 44.5 ± 3.5 yy; 175.7 ± 3.7; 73.9 ± 13.2 kg; V'O2max = 50.0 ±2.4 ml*min-1*kg-1). VAM significantly improves (P=0.001) by +5.95% and +4.75% in EST and HIT respectively; in VT1 every groups raises +6.8% (P=0.001) in EST, +5.5% (P=0.01) in HIT and +6.2% (P=0.05) in CTR; VT2 increases by 5.3% and 5.7% (P=0.001) in EST and HIT respectively and by 5.9% (P=0.05) in CTR. Although 8 weeks of training were not enough to increase maximal aerobic power the high intensity stimulation in EST and HIT improved the maximal aerobic velocity. Similar benefits were detected in each groups in VT1 and VT2 but the different significant power seems to indicate the EST training in RunForScience project as the best choice for enhancement the aerobic threshold, the parameter most correlated with the performance in middle and long distances.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
