Physiological and Performance Impacts After Field Supramaximal High-Intensity Interval Training With Different Work-Recovery Duration
Question
Do 15 s versus 30 s supramaximal running intervals with equal passive recovery produce different acute performance, metabolic, and muscle-damage responses?
Summary
In 15 recreational male runners, acute supramaximal field-running intervals using 15 s or 30 s work with equal passive rest produced similar distance/time and similar lactate and muscle-damage marker responses overall. The 15 s format allowed more repeated bouts, and the authors suggested it may need longer recovery because of more accelerations and decelerations.
Methodology
- Healthy recreational male runners.
- 15 participants.
- Track running.
- Work intervals: 15 s.
- Recovery: 15 s passive rest.
- Intensity: 130% vVO2max.
- Variable until exhaustion after 5 min warm-up.
- Acute session.
- Single trial.
- Randomized counterbalanced crossover acute field study
- Performance volume, Blood lactate, and Muscle-damage markers were tracked.
Outcomes
Bout count
H15 allowed more repeated bouts than H30.
p=0.001; effect size=1.19.
Distance/time
Total distance and stimulus time were similar between H15 and H30.
Blood lactate
Lactate increased after both sessions, with no clear between-condition difference.
H30 decreased from 5 to 10 min post, p=0.004.
CK/LDH
Both formats increased CK and LDH at 24 h, indicating acute muscle stress.
CK increased pre to 24 h in H15 p<0.001 and H30 p=0.001; LDH increased in both.
Insights
- At the same 1:1 work:rest ratio and supramaximal target, shorter running intervals increase repetitions and transitions.
- Track-based supramaximal intervals need clear termination criteria.
Limitations
- Small sample
- Acute-only design
- Male recreational runners only
- Surrogate recovery biomarkers
- No DOMS visual analog scale
Safety
- No adverse events or injuries were reported.
- Participants were excluded for relevant health/discomfort criteria and trials had stop rules.