No additional benefit of repeat-sprint training in hypoxia than in normoxia on sea-level repeat-sprint ability

Paul S R Goods, Brian Dawson, Grant J. Landers, Christopher J. Gore, Peter Peeling

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To assess the impact of ‘top-up’ normoxic or hypoxic repeat-sprint training on sea-level repeat-sprint ability, thirty team sport athletes were randomly split into three groups, which were matched in running repeat-sprint ability (RSA), cycling RSA and 20 m shuttle run performance. Two groups then performed 15 maximal cycling repeat-sprint training sessions over 5 weeks, in either normoxia (NORM) or hypoxia (HYP), while a third group acted as a control (CON). In the post-training cycling RSA test, both NORM (13.6%; p = 0.0001, and 8.6%; p = 0.001) and HYP (10.3%; p = 0.007, and 4.7%; p = 0.046) signif-icantly improved overall mean and peak power output, respec-tively, whereas CON did not change (1.4%; p = 0.528, and -1.1%; p = 0.571, respectively); with only NORM demonstrating a moderate effect for improved mean and peak power output compared to CON. Running RSA demonstrated no significant between group differences; however, the mean sprint times improved significantly from pre- to post-training for CON (1.1%), NORM (1.8%), and HYP (2.3%). Finally, there were no group differences in 20 m shuttle run performance. In conclu-sion, ‘top-up’ training improved performance in a task-specific activity (i.e. cycling); however, there was no additional benefit of conducting this ‘top-up’ training in hypoxia, since cycle RSA improved similarly in both HYP and NORM conditions. Re-gardless, the ‘top-up’ training had no significant impact on running RSA, therefore the use of cycle repeat-sprint training should be discouraged for team sport athletes due to limitations in specificity.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)681-688
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Sports Science and Medicine
Volume14
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Oceans and Seas
Running
Athletes
Sports
Hypoxia

Cite this

Goods, P. S. R., Dawson, B., Landers, G. J., Gore, C. J., & Peeling, P. (2015). No additional benefit of repeat-sprint training in hypoxia than in normoxia on sea-level repeat-sprint ability. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 14(3), 681-688.
Goods, Paul S R ; Dawson, Brian ; Landers, Grant J. ; Gore, Christopher J. ; Peeling, Peter. / No additional benefit of repeat-sprint training in hypoxia than in normoxia on sea-level repeat-sprint ability. In: Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 2015 ; Vol. 14, No. 3. pp. 681-688.
@article{cfdbda8a59484475ab478f6c68a5fd86,
title = "No additional benefit of repeat-sprint training in hypoxia than in normoxia on sea-level repeat-sprint ability",
abstract = "To assess the impact of ‘top-up’ normoxic or hypoxic repeat-sprint training on sea-level repeat-sprint ability, thirty team sport athletes were randomly split into three groups, which were matched in running repeat-sprint ability (RSA), cycling RSA and 20 m shuttle run performance. Two groups then performed 15 maximal cycling repeat-sprint training sessions over 5 weeks, in either normoxia (NORM) or hypoxia (HYP), while a third group acted as a control (CON). In the post-training cycling RSA test, both NORM (13.6{\%}; p = 0.0001, and 8.6{\%}; p = 0.001) and HYP (10.3{\%}; p = 0.007, and 4.7{\%}; p = 0.046) signif-icantly improved overall mean and peak power output, respec-tively, whereas CON did not change (1.4{\%}; p = 0.528, and -1.1{\%}; p = 0.571, respectively); with only NORM demonstrating a moderate effect for improved mean and peak power output compared to CON. Running RSA demonstrated no significant between group differences; however, the mean sprint times improved significantly from pre- to post-training for CON (1.1{\%}), NORM (1.8{\%}), and HYP (2.3{\%}). Finally, there were no group differences in 20 m shuttle run performance. In conclu-sion, ‘top-up’ training improved performance in a task-specific activity (i.e. cycling); however, there was no additional benefit of conducting this ‘top-up’ training in hypoxia, since cycle RSA improved similarly in both HYP and NORM conditions. Re-gardless, the ‘top-up’ training had no significant impact on running RSA, therefore the use of cycle repeat-sprint training should be discouraged for team sport athletes due to limitations in specificity.",
keywords = "Hypoxic training, Simulated altitude, Team sport, Top-up training",
author = "Goods, {Paul S R} and Brian Dawson and Landers, {Grant J.} and Gore, {Christopher J.} and Peter Peeling",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "681--688",
journal = "Journal of Sports Science and Medicine",
issn = "1303-2968",
publisher = "Department of Sports Medicine, Medical Faculty of Uludag University",
number = "3",

}

No additional benefit of repeat-sprint training in hypoxia than in normoxia on sea-level repeat-sprint ability. / Goods, Paul S R; Dawson, Brian; Landers, Grant J.; Gore, Christopher J.; Peeling, Peter.

In: Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, Vol. 14, No. 3, 01.09.2015, p. 681-688.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - No additional benefit of repeat-sprint training in hypoxia than in normoxia on sea-level repeat-sprint ability

AU - Goods, Paul S R

AU - Dawson, Brian

AU - Landers, Grant J.

AU - Gore, Christopher J.

AU - Peeling, Peter

PY - 2015/9/1

Y1 - 2015/9/1

N2 - To assess the impact of ‘top-up’ normoxic or hypoxic repeat-sprint training on sea-level repeat-sprint ability, thirty team sport athletes were randomly split into three groups, which were matched in running repeat-sprint ability (RSA), cycling RSA and 20 m shuttle run performance. Two groups then performed 15 maximal cycling repeat-sprint training sessions over 5 weeks, in either normoxia (NORM) or hypoxia (HYP), while a third group acted as a control (CON). In the post-training cycling RSA test, both NORM (13.6%; p = 0.0001, and 8.6%; p = 0.001) and HYP (10.3%; p = 0.007, and 4.7%; p = 0.046) signif-icantly improved overall mean and peak power output, respec-tively, whereas CON did not change (1.4%; p = 0.528, and -1.1%; p = 0.571, respectively); with only NORM demonstrating a moderate effect for improved mean and peak power output compared to CON. Running RSA demonstrated no significant between group differences; however, the mean sprint times improved significantly from pre- to post-training for CON (1.1%), NORM (1.8%), and HYP (2.3%). Finally, there were no group differences in 20 m shuttle run performance. In conclu-sion, ‘top-up’ training improved performance in a task-specific activity (i.e. cycling); however, there was no additional benefit of conducting this ‘top-up’ training in hypoxia, since cycle RSA improved similarly in both HYP and NORM conditions. Re-gardless, the ‘top-up’ training had no significant impact on running RSA, therefore the use of cycle repeat-sprint training should be discouraged for team sport athletes due to limitations in specificity.

AB - To assess the impact of ‘top-up’ normoxic or hypoxic repeat-sprint training on sea-level repeat-sprint ability, thirty team sport athletes were randomly split into three groups, which were matched in running repeat-sprint ability (RSA), cycling RSA and 20 m shuttle run performance. Two groups then performed 15 maximal cycling repeat-sprint training sessions over 5 weeks, in either normoxia (NORM) or hypoxia (HYP), while a third group acted as a control (CON). In the post-training cycling RSA test, both NORM (13.6%; p = 0.0001, and 8.6%; p = 0.001) and HYP (10.3%; p = 0.007, and 4.7%; p = 0.046) signif-icantly improved overall mean and peak power output, respec-tively, whereas CON did not change (1.4%; p = 0.528, and -1.1%; p = 0.571, respectively); with only NORM demonstrating a moderate effect for improved mean and peak power output compared to CON. Running RSA demonstrated no significant between group differences; however, the mean sprint times improved significantly from pre- to post-training for CON (1.1%), NORM (1.8%), and HYP (2.3%). Finally, there were no group differences in 20 m shuttle run performance. In conclu-sion, ‘top-up’ training improved performance in a task-specific activity (i.e. cycling); however, there was no additional benefit of conducting this ‘top-up’ training in hypoxia, since cycle RSA improved similarly in both HYP and NORM conditions. Re-gardless, the ‘top-up’ training had no significant impact on running RSA, therefore the use of cycle repeat-sprint training should be discouraged for team sport athletes due to limitations in specificity.

KW - Hypoxic training

KW - Simulated altitude

KW - Team sport

KW - Top-up training

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84939166739&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 681

EP - 688

JO - Journal of Sports Science and Medicine

JF - Journal of Sports Science and Medicine

SN - 1303-2968

IS - 3

ER -