Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26448854›Full record

ArticleAsian journal of sports medicine2015

Specific Intensity for Peaking: Is Race Pace the Best Option?

Iker Munoz, Stephen Seiler, Alberto Alcocer, Natasha Carr, Jonathan Esteve-Lanao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian journal of sports medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. HIIT vs. SIT: What Is the Better to Improve V˙OInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Iker MunozDepartment of Motricity and Sport Training Fundamentals, European University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Stephen SeilerFaculty of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.
Alberto AlcocerCardiometatabolic Unity, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Yucatan, Merida, Mexico.
Natasha CarrSchool of Nutrition and Health Promotion, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA.
Jonathan Esteve-LanaoDepartment of Motricity and Sport Training Fundamentals, European University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe peaking period for endurance competition is characterized for a relative increase of the intensity of training, after a longer period of training relatively dominated by lower intensity and higher volume.

objectivesThe present study was designed to compare physiological and 10 km performance effects of high intensity training (HIT) versus race pace interval training (RP) during peaking for competition in well-trained runners. PATIENTS AND

methods13 athletes took part in the study, they were divided into two groups: HIT and RP. HIT performed short intervals at ~105% of the maximal aerobic velocity (MAV), while RP trained longer intervals at a speed of ~90% of the MAV (a speed approximating 10 km race pace). After 12 weeks of baseline training, the athletes trained for 6 weeks under one of the two peaking regimes. Subjects performed 10 km prior to and after the intervention period. The total load of training was matched between groups during the treatment phase. Subjects completed a graded treadmill running test until volitional exhaustion prior to each 10 km race. MAV was determined as the minimal velocity eliciting maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max).

resultsBoth groups significantly improved their 10 km time (35 minutes 29 seconds ± 1 minutes 41 seconds vs 34 minutes 53 seconds ± 1 minutes 55 seconds, P < 0.01 for HIT; 35 minutes 27 seconds ± 1 minutes 40 seconds vs 34 minutes 53 seconds ± 1 minutes 18 seconds P < 0.01 for RP). VO2max increased after HIT (69 ± 3.6 vs 71.5 ± 4.2 ml.Kg(-1).min(-1), P < 0.05); while it didn't for RP (68.4 ± 6 vs 69.8 ± 3 ml.Kg(-1).min(-1), p>0.05). In contrast, running economy decreased significantly after HIT (210 ± 6 ml.Kg(-1).km(-1) vs 218 ± 9, P < 0.05).

conclusionsA 6 week period of training at either 105% of MAV or 90% of MAV yielded similar performance gains in a 10km race performed at ~90% MAV. Therefore, the physiological impact of HIT training seems to be positive for VO2max but negative for running economy.

Indexed as

Athletic PerformanceExerciseRunning

Identifiers

PMID26448854
PMCPMC4594142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.