HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training) is becoming more and more popular in the fitness industry. HIIT consists of brief to moderate periods of high intensity work followed by active or passive recoveries (Laursen and Jenkins., 2002). It is well established that HIIT protocols can induce similar evolution of the body’s muscle oxidative capacity as steady state aerobic training, in a fraction of the time, with less volume. Inside of HIIT training there are several subgroups of training categories, one being sprint interval training (SIT).
SIT is at the high end of the intensity spectrum of HIIT training – it is categorised by all-out efforts lasting between 10 and 30s. Research has shown SIT has the following benefits that are comparable to endurance steady state training:
- Increases aerobic capacity
- Increases skeletal muscle glycolytic and oxidative capacities
- Elevates lactate threshold
Recent key research points:
Can we reduce sprint duration and still have positive adaptations?: Recent research by Foster et al., (2014) has shown that we can even reduce the sprint work interval duration and still maintain effective adaptations. They demonstrated that by reducing the standard 30s sprint duration by 50% to 15 seconds over a 4 week training phase, they could enhance aerobic capacity to a similar standard as the traditional 30s Wingate protocol. This has been similarly found in previous studies by Hazell et al., (2010). We can therefore utilise short duration 15s sprints with clients very short on time and still achieve performance and health enhancements.
Can upper body exercise effect wingate sprint performance?: Recently Baird et al., 2014 examined the effect Upper Body Exercise had on Wingate performance. This could potentially have implications for training order in sessions. To examine the effect, the researchers split down participants into two groups – one group completed 4 sets of biceps curls prior to sprinting, the other completed no upper body exercises prior to sprinting. The researchers concluded that the upper body exercise group had a statistically significant negative effect on peak power output in the Wingate sprint protocol compared to the group that did not complete upper body exercises, suggesting training should be separated by a significant time.
Does passive or active recovery effect power output repeated wingate sprint performance?: Smollga et al., (2014) looked specifically at both recovery modalities. One group was allowed a full passive recovery, the other had to cycle at a slow cadence (1.1 w/kg). Interestingly they concluded that “Passive recovery is beneficial when only 2 sprints are completed, whereas active recovery better maintains average power output compared with passive recovery when several sprints are performed sequentially”. It can therefore be suggested that keeping clients active between intense bouts may provide greater long term training benefits.
The acute effects of dynamic stretching on wingate performance Much research has recently shown negative effects upon many power events when static stretching has been included in the warm up routine, or in the preceding hours (up to 24 hours). However until recently the effect of dynamic stretching on Wingate performance had little research conducted upon it. Recently, Coons et al., (2014) compared such protocols. The study suggested that dynamic stretching may significantly decrease mean power during anaerobic performance.
Small elements and components can lead to significant differences in performance over time – utilise the above information to maximise every second with your client.