PMID 36763697

Research
All papers

Jumping vs. running: Effects of exercise modality on aerobic capacity and neuromuscular performance after a six-week high-intensity interval training

Question

Does a six-week HIIT program using jumping produce the same aerobic and neuromuscular adaptations as an identically timed running HIIT program?

Summary

When recreationally active adults did the same six-week HIIT timing with either running shuttles or countermovement jumps, adaptations depended strongly on the exercise mode. Running HIIT improved relative VO2max, while jump HIIT improved leg strength but did not improve jump height or relative VO2max.

Methodology

  • Recreationally active young adults
  • 46 participants.
  • Countermovement jumps.
  • Work intervals: 20-40 s.
  • Recovery: 10-40 s.
  • Intensity: Maximal effort every jump.
  • 4 min 20 s to 7 min 30 s main set.
  • 3 sessions/week.
  • 6 weeks.
  • Randomized controlled training study
  • VO2max, Leg strength, Jump performance, and RPE were tracked.

Outcomes

VO2max

Running HIIT significantly improved relative VO2max; jump HIIT did not.

Group x time p=0.004; running +7.6%, p<0.001; jump +2.6%, p=0.186.

Improved

Leg strength

Jump HIIT increased knee extension and plantar-flexion maximal voluntary contraction.

Abstract reports plantar flexion +12.8% and knee extension +8.2%; increase only in jumping group.

Improved

Jump performance

Neither HIIT modality improved CMJ height or maximal jump power.

No interaction effects for maximal power or jump height.

No clear change

Peak power

Peak power during the ramp test increased in both training groups and control.

Group x time p=0.004; RT p<0.001, JT p<0.001, control p=0.006.

Mixed

Insights

  • Running is a better HIIT modality when the main target is aerobic capacity.
  • Jump HIIT can target strength but needs careful joint-load scaling.

Limitations

  • Training HR and oxygen uptake were not measured
  • Baseline sex ratio and body-fat differences between groups
  • No muscle endurance or repeated-sprint tests
  • Matched programming may not have been optimal for jumping

Safety

  • Two participants were injured outside the study and dropped out.
  • No study-related adverse events were reported in the paper.