INTERVAL VS. CONTINUOUS TRAINING METHODS PRODUCE BOTH DIFFERENT AND SIMILAR EFFECTS ON PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASURES
Foster, C., Poole, C., Bushey, B., & Wilborn, C. (2009). Comparison of aerobic training methods on VO2max, body composition, and anaerobic power. ACSM 56th Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, Presentation Number 2897.
This study investigated the potential impact of various aerobic training methods on VO2, body composition, and anaerobic power. Healthy males and females (N = 34) participated in an equated volume supervised running workout for six weeks using two alternate training methods. Group 1 (N = 17) participated in Interval Training Distance and group 2 (N = 17) participated in Long Slow Distance. All Ss participated in a familiarity session, a Pre-test, and a Post-test . Each testing session consisted of a VO2max, a 30-second Wingate test, and body composition assessment.
Both training groups experienced significant increases in VO2max. A significant interaction in VO2max occurred between groups, as the Interval Training Distance group displayed a 302% greater increase when compared to the Long Slow Distance group. Body fat percentage and total body weight significantly decreased in both groups. There was no change in Wingate peak or mean power in either group.
Implication. The Interval Training Distance method has a greater impact on aerobic capacity than Long Slow Distance training. Both Interval Training Distance and Long Slow Distance training methods had significant impacts on aerobic capacity, body weight, and body composition.
Return to Table of Contents for this issue.