Effects of Continuous and Interval Training on Running Economy, Maximal Aerobic Speed and Gait Kinematics in Recreational Runners :

Brief, intense exercise training may induce metabolic and performance adaptations comparable to traditional endurance training. However, no study has directly compared these diverse training strategies in a standardized manner. We therefore examined changes in exercise capacity and molecular and cellular adaptations in skeletal muscle after low volume sprint-interval training (SIT) and high volume endurance training (ET). Sixteen active men (21 +/- 1 years, ) were assigned to a SIT or ET group (n = 8 each) and performed six training sessions over 14 days. Each session consisted of either four to six repeats of 30 s 'all out' cycling at approximately 250% with 4 min recovery (SIT) or 90-120 min continuous cycling at approximately 65% (ET). Training time commitment over 2 weeks was approximately 2.5 h for SIT and approximately 10.5 h for ET, and total training volume was approximately 90% lower for SIT versus ET ( approximately 630 versus approximately 6500 kJ). Training decreased the time required to complete 50 and 750 kJ cycling time trials, with no difference between groups (main effects, P

This study compares the physical and training characteristics of top-class marathon runners (TC), i.e., runners having a personal best of less than 2 h 11 min for males and 2 h 32 min for females, respectively, versus high-level (HL) (< 2 h 16 min and < 2 h 38 min). Twenty marathon runners (five TC and HL in each gender) ran 10 km at their best marathon performance velocity (vMarathon) on a level road. This velocity was the target velocity for the Olympic trials they performed 8 wk later. After a rest of 6 min, they ran an all-out 1000-m run to determine the peak oxygen consumption on flat road (.VO(2peak)). Marathon performance time (MPT) was inversely correlated with .VO(2peak). (r = -0.73, P < 0.01) and predicted 59% of the variance of MPT. Moreover, TC male marathon runners were less economical because their energy cost of running (Cr) at marathon velocity was significantly higher than that of their counterparts (212 +/- 17 vs 195 +/- 14 mL.km(-1).kg(-1), P = 0.03). For females, no difference was observed for the energetic characteristics between TC and HL marathon runners. However, the velocity reached during the 1000-m run performed after the 10-km run at vMarathon was highly correlated with MPT (r = -0.85, P < 0.001). Concerning training differences, independent of the gender, TC marathon runners trained for more total kilometers per week and at a higher velocity (velocity over 3000 m and 10,000 m). The high energy output seems to be the discriminating factor for top-class male marathon runners who trained at higher relative intensities.

Between inefficient training and overtraining, an appropriate training stimulus (in terms of intensity and duration) has to be determined in accordance with individual capacities. Interval training at the minimal velocity associated with VO2max (vVO2max) allows an athlete to run for as long as possible at VO2max. Nevertheless, we don't know the influence of a defined increase in training volume at vVO2max on aerobic performance, noradrenaline, and heart rate.