# Effects of different work-to-rest ratios of high-intensity interval training on physical performance and physiological responses in male college judo athletes

PMID: 38577388
Journal: Journal of Exercise Science and Fitness
Published: 2024 Jul
Authors: Zhang Z, Xie L, Ji H, Chen L, Gao C, He J, Lu M, Yang Q, Sun J, Li D

## Question

How do 3:1 versus 2:1 work-to-rest HIIT formats affect performance and physiological responses in male college judo athletes?

## Summary

In male college judo athletes, six weeks of sport-specific HIIT added to regular training improved VO2max, agility, and anaerobic power more clearly with a 3:1 work-rest format than with a 2:1 format. The study is athlete-specific and HR export problems limited intensity verification.

## Population

- Male college judo athletes
- Sample size: 48
- Age: 19-22 years
- Sex: Male
- Fitness level: Trained competitive judo athletes
- Health status: No cardiovascular disease or recent musculoskeletal injury

## Methodology

- Randomized controlled trial
- 6 weeks
- College judo training environment
- Randomized and controlled study design.

## Protocol

- Judo 3:1 or 2:1 HIIT.
- Modality: Judo-specific conditioning.
- Work intervals: 30 seconds for 3:1 or 20 seconds for 2:1.
- Recovery: 10 seconds between reps, 2.5 minutes between sets.
- Sets or repetitions: 2 sets x 6 reps for 3:1; 2 sets x 9 reps for 2:1.
- Intensity: >=85% HRmax target.
- Session duration: Main sets about 11.5 minutes including set recovery.
- Frequency: 2 sessions/week.
- Program length: 6 weeks.
- Progression: Dummy load increased from 50% to 60% body mass.
- Control training.
- Modality: Regular judo plus strength training.
- Sets or repetitions: Four judo sessions and one strength session per week.
- Frequency: 5 training sessions/week.
- Program length: 6 weeks.

## Outcomes

### VO2max
Status: improved
Both HIIT ratios improved VO2max versus baseline and control.

3:1 +5.6%, p=0.001; 2:1 +9.8%, p<0.001.

### Agility
Status: improved
Modified T-test improved most clearly in 3:1.

3:1 post 5.65 +/- 0.29 vs control 6.04 +/- 0.31, p=0.004.

### Anaerobic power
Status: improved
Peak power and relative peak power improved only in 3:1.

PP +6.8%, p=0.013; PP/kg +7.5%, p=0.007.

### Sprint/jump
Status: no clear change
30m sprint and CMJ did not significantly improve.

## Practical Insights

- Sport-specific HIIT ratios may change performance adaptations.
- Athlete HIIT protocols need injury screening and readiness checks.

## Limitations

- Male athlete-only sample.
- Short 6-week intervention.
- Heart-rate data export failure.
- General fitness tests may not capture judo-specific performance fully.

## Safety And Adherence

- Intervention adverse events were not specifically reported.
- Before randomization, five athletes were excluded because of injuries.
- Participants with cardiovascular disease or musculoskeletal injury in the prior 6 months were excluded.
- Participants were asked before each session whether they wanted or were able to continue; injury monitoring was emphasized.

## Original Sources

- [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38577388/) (pubmed)
- [DOI](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesf.2024.03.009) (doi)
- [PMC full text](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10990747/) (full text)

## Agent Guidance

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