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

PMID: 36763697
Journal: PloS one
Published: 2023
Authors: Venegas-Carro M, Herring JT, Riehle S, Kramer A

## 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.

## Population

- Recreationally active young adults
- Sample size: 46
- Age: 24 +/- 3 years
- Sex: 22 women
- Fitness level: Recreationally active; well-trained participants excluded
- Health status: No sport contraindications by PAR-Q+

## Methodology

- Randomized controlled training study
- 6 weeks
- University exercise testing and training environment
- Randomized and controlled study design.

## Protocol

- Jump HIIT.
- Modality: Countermovement jumps.
- Work intervals: 20-40 s.
- Recovery: 10-40 s.
- Sets or repetitions: 4-8 series depending on session.
- Intensity: Maximal effort every jump.
- Session duration: 4 min 20 s to 7 min 30 s main set.
- Frequency: 3 sessions/week.
- Program length: 6 weeks.
- Progression: 18-session schedule varied series, work duration, and rest duration.
- Running HIIT.
- Modality: 15-m shuttle running.
- Work intervals: 20-40 s.
- Recovery: 10-40 s.
- Sets or repetitions: 4-8 series depending on session.
- Intensity: Run as fast as possible with stops and reaccelerations.
- Session duration: 4 min 20 s to 7 min 30 s main set.
- Frequency: 3 sessions/week.
- Program length: 6 weeks.
- Progression: Same 18-session work/rest schedule as jump group.

## Outcomes

### VO2max
Status: improved
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.

### Leg strength
Status: improved
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.

### Jump performance
Status: no clear change
Neither HIIT modality improved CMJ height or maximal jump power.

No interaction effects for maximal power or jump height.

### Peak power
Status: mixed
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.

## Practical 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 And Adherence

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

## Original Sources

- [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36763697/) (pubmed)
- [DOI](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281737) (doi)
- [PMC full text](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9917273/) (full text)

## Agent Guidance

Preserve the paper-level scope of this note. Do not generalize beyond the population, protocol, measured outcomes, and limitations above.