A comparison of different work: rest ratios in a high intensity interval-training programme; the effect on performance and health parameters
type: CreativeWork
description: Background It is well documented that high intensity interval training (HIIT) is a time efficient and effective method of training to improve exercise performance. However, there are a wide range of intervention protocols used in both research and applied fields, making comparison of data difficult. Previous work from our laboratory (Lloyd-Jones et al., under review) suggested that the work:rest ratio used during this type of training may be important in determining adaptations, and in selecting the most efficient training approach, although this a poorly understood and often neglected consideration. Therefore the aim of this study is to compare different work:rest ratio, all using a 6 second sprint but with either a 1:8, 1:10 or 1:12 work:rest ratio. Methods 35 active male and females (age: 24 ± 4 years, height: 1.77 ± 0.09m, body mass: 74.7 ± 12.9kg, body fat: 16.8 ± 6.1%, height, body mass, body fat) initially completed a VO2max step test, followed at least 24hrs later by a thigh occlusion test whilst wearing near-infrared spectroscopy over the vastus lateralis muscle, and a 10km cycling time trial. Participants then completed 6 sessions of HIIT on a cycle ergometer split over 2 weeks, consisting of 10x6 sec sprints with either 48sec rest (1:8 group), 60sec rest (1:10 group) or 72sec rest (1:12 group), and compared with a control group in a randomised controlled trial. Peak and average power output were calculated for each sprint session and peak power calculated for each individual sprint. Results There was no significant change in VO2max following 2 weeks of training in any group, or 10km time trial performance (1:8: pre: 780 ± 258sec post: 751 ± 270sec, 1:10 pre: 572 ± 138sec post: 563 ± 134sec, 1:12: pre: 641 ± 100sec post: 615 ± 94sec, Con: pre: 716 ± 207sec post: 761 ± 229sec). Peak power output increased significantly in the 1:8 group (1038 ± 330 -1095 ± 357 watts), 1:10 group (1092 ± 282 - 1148 ± 286 watts) and 1:12 group (1043 ± 201 - 1097 ± 226 watts). …
abstract: Background It is well documented that high intensity interval training (HIIT) is a time efficient and effective method of training to improve exercise performance. However, there are a wide range of intervention protocols used in both research and applied fields, making comparison of data difficult. Previous work from our laboratory (Lloyd-Jones et al., under review) suggested that the work:rest ratio used during this type of training may be important in determining adaptations, and in selecting the most efficient training approach, although this a poorly understood and often neglected consideration. Therefore the aim of this study is to compare different work:rest ratio, all using a 6 second sprint but with either a 1:8, 1:10 or 1:12 work:rest ratio. Methods 35 active male and females (age: 24 ± 4 years, height: 1.77 ± 0.09m, body mass: 74.7 ± 12.9kg, body fat: 16.8 ± 6.1%, height, body mass, body fat) initially completed a VO2max step test, followed at least 24hrs later by a thigh occlusion test whilst wearing near-infrared spectroscopy over the vastus lateralis muscle, and a 10km cycling time trial. Participants then completed 6 sessions of HIIT on a cycle ergometer split over 2 weeks, consisting of 10x6 sec sprints with either 48sec rest (1:8 group), 60sec rest (1:10 group) or 72sec rest (1:12 group), and compared with a control group in a randomised controlled trial. Peak and average power output were calculated for each sprint session and peak power calculated for each individual sprint. Results There was no significant change in VO2max following 2 weeks of training in any group, or 10km time trial performance (1:8: pre: 780 ± 258sec post: 751 ± 270sec, 1:10 pre: 572 ± 138sec post: 563 ± 134sec, 1:12: pre: 641 ± 100sec post: 615 ± 94sec, Con: pre: 716 ± 207sec post: 761 ± 229sec). Peak power output increased significantly in the 1:8 group (1038 ± 330 -1095 ± 357 watts), 1:10 group (1092 ± 282 - 1148 ± 286 watts) and 1:12 group (1043 ± 201 - 1097 ± 226 watts). …
author: Lloyd Jones, Molly
language: en
date published: 2016
date modified: 2026-07-24T03:43:00Z
provider: Oxford Brookes University
publisher: Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations
type: WebPage
source organization: Oxford Brookes University

PropertyValue
property ID: DOI
value: 10.24384/gwhm-yf69