Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Kinesiology (MKin)

Department

Kinesiology and Physical Education

Faculty/School

Faculty of Science

First Advisor

Dr. Tom Hazell

Advisor Role

Master's Thesis Advisor

Second Advisor

Dr. Mark Eys

Advisor Role

Thesis Advisory Committee

Third Advisor

Dr. Stephen Perry

Advisor Role

Thesis Advisory Committee

Abstract

The current study examined the incidence of non-response to a traditional 30:240 s sprint interval training (SIT) protocol, as well as for 2 modified SIT protocols of 15:120 s, and 5:40 s over 4 wk of training in 84 recreationally active males and females (52m, 32f). Pre- and post- testing measures included: aerobic capacity (V̇O2max), aerobic performance (5-km time trial), and anaerobic capacity (30 s sprint). Non-response was determined using 2x typical error for each variable. Chi square analysis indicated a significant difference (P = 0.032) in the frequency of non-responders for aerobic performance where the 30:240 group had significantly fewer non-responders than both modified groups (30:240 – 30%, 15:120 – 59%, 5:40 – 65%). There was also a significant difference (P = 0.037) in the frequency of non-responders for time to peak speed where the 30:240 group had significantly more non-responders than both modified groups (30:240 – 87%, 15:120 – 52%, 5:40 – 65%). There was no significant difference (P > 0.095) for all other measures (aerobic capacity: 30:240 – 36%, 15:120 – 61%, 5:40 – 59%; peak speed: 30:240 – 52%; 15:120 – 78%, 5:40 – 52%; average speed: 30:240 – 83%, 15:120 – 83%, 5:40 – 70%; minimum speed: 30:240 – 91%, 15:120 – 87%, 5:40 – 78%). These results suggest that these SIT protocols produce similar improvements to aerobic capacity, indicating that modified SIT protocols can be a viable training method to improve cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). However, when examining more running performance-related variables, different SIT protocols can induce different magnitudes of adaptation, as it appears SIT protocols with longer sprint and rest durations benefit longer distance performance (i.e., 5 km), while those SIT protocols with shorter sprint and rest durations benefit short distance performance (i.e., 30 s sprint).

Convocation Year

2019

Convocation Season

Fall

Download

Share

COinS