1

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001778

NEUROMUSCULAR AND CARDIOVASCULAR ADAPTATIONS IN RESPONSE

D
TO HIGH INTENSITY INTERVAL POWER TRAINING

TE
Running Head: Effects of High Intensity Power Training.

Original Research
EP
Salvador Romero-Arenas1, Rubén Ruiz1, Antonio Vera1, David Colomer-Poveda1, Amelia

Guadalupe Grau2,3 & Gonzalo Márquez1.

1
Departamento de Ciencias de la Actividad Física y del Deporte, Facultad de Deporte -
C

UCAM, Universidad Católica de Murcia, Spain.

2
ImFINE Research Group, Department of Health and Human Performance, Faculty of
C

Physical Activity and Sport Sciences-INEF, Technical University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
3
Hospital Virgen del Valle, Complejo Hospitalario de Toledo, Toledo, Spain,
A

Corresponding author in:

Salvador Romero-Arenas, PhD.

Facultad de Deporte - Universidad Católica de Murcia

Campus de los Jerónimos, s/n, 30107, Guadalupe, Murcia, Spain.

Tel.: +34 968 278 824; fax: +34 968 278 658

e-mail address: [email protected]

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 2

ABSTRACT

The aim of the present study was to determine the efficacy of a high-intensity power training

(HIPT) program, and to compare the effects of HIPT to traditional power training (TPT) on

the aerobic and power performance. For this purpose, 29 healthy men (23.1±2.7 years) were

recruited and randomly distributed into three different groups. One group performed

traditional power training (TPT n=10), the second group performed power training organized

D
as a circuit (HIPT; n=10) and the third group served as control (CG; n=9). Training consisted

of weight lifting thrice per week for six weeks. TPT subjects performed three to five sets of

TE
each exercises with inter-set rest of 90 s, and HIPT subjects executed the training in a short

circuit (15 s of rest between exercises). In order to known the effects in aerobic performance,

maximal aerobic speed (MAS) was measured. In order to identify the effects on power

performance subjects performed a Wingate test, a countermovement jump (CMJ) test and a
EP
power-load curve in bench press. The main results showed that after both power training

protocols subjects increased significantly (p<0.05) the power production during the Wingate

Test, the height and power reached during the CMJ test and the peak power produced during
C

the power-load curve. However, only the HIPT group improved significantly MAS (p<0.05).

There were no changes in any variables in CG. Hence, our results suggest that HIPT may be
C

as effective as TPT for improving power performance in young adults. Additionally, only

HIPT elicited improvements in MAS.

A

Key words: High-intensity interval training, power training, aerobic performance, muscular

performance.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 3

INTRODUCTION

Recent evidence suggests that high intensity interval training (HIIT) is a time-efficient

strategy to stimulate a number of skeletal muscle adaptations that are comparable to

traditional endurance training (17, 32). It is well documented that HIIT may induce

improvements in both anaerobic and aerobic metabolism, depending on the manipulation of

the intensity and duration of bouts and recovery periods (5, 20).

D
High-intensity interval training is characterized by brief, repeated bursts of relatively intense

exercise separated by periods of rest or low-intensity exercise. One of the most common

TE
models employed in low-volume HIIT studies is the Wingate Test, which consists of 30 s of

“all-out” cycling against a high resistance on a specialized cycle ergometer (18). As little as

six sessions of this type of training over 2 weeks robustly increases skeletal muscle oxidative

capacity, as reflected by the maximal activity and (or) protein content of various
EP
mitochondrial enzymes (5, 16). A modified Wingate-based HIIT protocol that consisted of

4×10 s “all-out” sprints induced improvements in aerobic and anaerobic performance that

were comparable to a 4×30 s protocol (20). Another study by Metcalfe et al. (28) showed that
C

a protocol consisting of 2×20 s “all-out” sprints, included within a 10 min bout of primarily

low-intensity cycling, improved VO2 max after 6 weeks of training (18 total sessions). The
C

effects of HIIT have been studied for decades, the results showing that this type of training

induces improvements mainly in maximal aerobic power (25, 29). Furthermore, HIIT seems
A

to improve determinant variables of endurance running performance such as velocity at

maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max) (11), running economy (21), velocity at lactate threshold

(11) and time to exhaustion (13).

In the last years, a new variation of HIIT in combination with traditional power-strength

training (based on high intensity resistance training) using basic multi joint movements, has

emerged and became popular in the fitness industry. This high intensity power training

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 4

(HIPT) is performed with low rest periods between exercises, or a lack of prescribed rest

periods, with the aim to finish the training as fast as possible leading to increased acute

physiological demands (14). In this regard, recent research has shown that HIPT is a useful

tool to obtain improvements in VO2 max and body composition (40) similar to those elicited

by HIIT (18, 41). It is likely that this potent high intensity stimulus could improve aerobic

and anaerobic performance, however the higher acute physiological changes associated with

D
this type of training could impair power output during the performance of the exercise and

thus, limit chronic adaptations in power performance. However, to our knowledge, it has not

TE
been yet tested the effects of a HIPT program on muscle strength and power in comparison to

those obtained with a traditional power training (TPT). Traditional power training aims to

improve maximal power output through the execution of varied multi joint classic resistance
EP
training exercise or generic movements like sprinting, jumping, throwing, kicking with the

aim to produce maximal velocity in the used movement (19). TPT is usually performed using

few repetitions with the optimal load together with high inter-set rest periods to reduce

changes in muscle environment, because shorter inter-set time periods have been proven to
C

increase peripheral fatigue (27, 36), which can finally blunt strength and power adaptations

(15).
C

In light of all this, the aim of the present study was to test the effects of six weeks of both

HIPT and TPT on the aerobic, anaerobic, strength and power performance in healthy young
A

active males. Specifically, whilst we hypothesized that HIPT training would lead to

significant improvements in cardiovascular fitness, we were particularly interested in

determining whether strength and power changes would be comparable to those elicited by

traditional power training.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 5

METHODS

Experimental Approach to the Problem

A quasi-experimental pre- and post-test group design using two training groups and a control

group to examine the short-term (6 weeks) effects of three sessions per week when using

power training on the aerobic and power performance. Before data collection, the subjects

took part in a familiarization session for each test. One week after the familiarization, the

D
dependent variables were tested, as described below. Subsequently, the subjects were

matched with respect to height, weight and pre-training one repetition maximum (1RM) in

TE
bench press, and then randomly allocated to either a high intensity interval power training

(HIPT; n = 10), traditional power training (TPT; n = 10) or control group (CG; n = 10). The

subjects were tested by the same investigator, using the same protocol, at the same time of
EP
day at weeks 0 and 7, and in a similar ambient temperature (19 - 22 C°). In session 1, height

and power in CMJ, 1RM in bench press, load-velocity curve at 30, 40, 50, 60, 70% of 1RM

during bench press movement, and maximum aerobic speed (MAS) tests were completed. In

session 2, completed 3-4 days after session 1, 1RM in bench press, load-velocity curve at 30,
C

40, 50, 60, 70, 80% of 1RM during high pull movement, and Wingate tests were completed.

For the completion of all experimental protocols, the subjects were instructed to remain fast
C

for 3 h and not to consume alcohol or caffeine within 12 h. They were also asked to avoid

strenuous physical activities the day before each session. During the 6 weeks training period,
A

both training groups (HIPT and TPT) performed training using a Multipower machine

(Technogym SpA, Cesena, Italy) and a cycle-ergometer (Bike Med, Technogym SpA,

Cesena, Italy), in an incremental periodized program twice a week. All subjects were asked to

maintain their normal daily routines and eating habits, not to take nutritional supplements that

might affect lean tissue mass, and to refrain from commencing new exercise programs during

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 6

the study. One subject pertaining to the control group withdrew from the study for personal

reasons.

Subjects

Twenty-nine healthy males responded to an invitation to participate in the study. All of them

had at least 6 months of experience in resistance training, with a minimum frequency of two

D
sessions per week. Subjects’ mean ± SD age, height, and body mass were 23.1 ± 2.7 years

old, 176.4 ± 7.9 cm, and 75.5 ± 8.7 kg, respectively. The subjects were informed about the

TE
design of the study and possible risks and discomforts related to the testing and training, after

which they read and signed an informed consent document. Subjects were told that they were

free to withdraw from the study at any time, without penalty. The study was conducted
EP
according to the Helsinki Declaration, and all procedures used in this study were approved by

the University’s Institutional Review Board before the initiation of the study.

Procedures
C

Subjects performed two similar sets of tests before and after the six weeks training period.

The first set of tests was conducted on two non-consecutive days during the week prior to the
C

beginning of the training program. The second set of tests was conducted under the same

conditions during the week after completion of the training program. Both sets of tests were
A

performed using the same procedures, and with the same technician, who was blind to the

training-group affiliation. All subjects were familiarized with the testing procedures one week

before. Before each set of tests, the subjects performed a standard warm-up that included 8

min of jogging, followed by 10 min of dynamic stretching exercises. The different tests were

conducted with a rest interval of 20-30 min in between. All tests were performed at the same

location and under similar environmental conditions as in the training sessions. The test-retest

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 7

measurements performed in our laboratory confirmed good reproducibility of all

measurements: ICC > 0.85, and typical error of measurement values ranging from 2.6% to

8.3%.

Vertical jump tests

Lower limb explosive power was assessed by a countermovement jump (CMJ) with hands on

D
the hips. Subjects began each jump in an erect standing position, and moved into a semi-squat

position before jumping as high as possible. The subjects performed three trials for each

TE
jumping form with passive recovery of 60 s between jumps, and the best result was recorded.

The test (CMJ) was performed on a Kistler BA9281 platform (Kistler Instrument, Winterthur,

Switzerland) installed at ground level. Ground reaction forces (GRF) were recorded with a
EP
sampling frequency of 1000 Hz. All data were collected on a PC for further processing and

analysis. Vertical acceleration (from the GRF) was evaluated in order to obtain the vertical

velocity and displacement of the center of mass, using the double integration method (7). The

height of the jump was obtained from the velocity value at the moment of take-off using the
C

following equation: H = v2 · 2g-1; where v is the take-off velocity and g the gravitational

acceleration. The peak power was obtained from the product of force and vertical velocity.
C

Maximal strength test

A

One repetition maximum, for the bench press and the high pull, was measured on a separate

day. The tests were performed using a Multipower machine (Technogym SpA, Cesena, Italy)

in which the barbell was attached to both ends, with linear bearings on two vertical bars

allowing only vertical movement. Warm-up consisted of 10 repetitions set at a load of 50% of

the perceived maximum weight. Thereafter, four to five separate single attempts were

performed, starting from a weight of about 80% of the maximum perceived. The last

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 8

acceptable extension with the highest possible load was determined as 1RM. The rest period

between attempts was always 3 min.

Peak power test

The peak power measurement, for the bench press and the high pull, was measured on a

separate day. On the Multipower machine (Technogym SpA, Cesena, Italy), a linear position

D
transducer (LPT) (Chronojump Bosco System, Barcelona, Spain) attached to the barbell and

interfaced with a computer allowed the recording of bar position with an accuracy of 0.001 s.

TE
The system was calibrated before the testing session, and bar velocity was subsequently

calculated. The LPT produced a voltage signal representative of the degree at which the LPT

was extended allowing for displacement–time data to be calculated (8). Instantaneous vertical
EP
velocity (v) of the bar throughout the movement was calculated using the displacement (x)

and time (t) data at each sample, (v = ∆x·∆t-1). Acceleration of the system (a) was calculated

using a second-order derivative of the displacement data (a = ∆x·∆t-2). Force (F) produced

during the lift was determined by adding the acceleration of the system and acceleration
C

resulting from gravity (g = 9.81m·s-2) and then multiplying the total acceleration to the mass of the

system (SM), F = SM⋅(a+g) (8). Following these calculations, power (P) was determined by
C

multiplying force and velocity at each time point (P = F⋅v) (12). The production of mechanical

power of each repetition in bench press or high pull during the concentric phase of the
A

movement was calculated. The peak power of the best repetition in each situation was used in

the analysis. Thirty minutes after testing for the maximum strength, the subjects were asked

to perform 4 sets of 3 repetitions of bench press using resistances of 30, 40, 60, and 70% of

1RM; or 5 sets of 3 repetitions of high pull using resistances of 30, 40, 60, 70, and 80% of

1RM, with 3 min passive rest between sets. The subjects were spotted by an experienced

lifter to ensure that maximum velocity was achieved safely, and the subject was confident

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 9

under the weight. Loud verbal encouragement was given throughout. The eccentric phase of

the lift was performed over 2 s and was timed by a digital metronome, whereas the concentric

phase was performed at maximum velocity.

Maximal aerobic speed test

An incremental treadmill exercise test was used to assess MAS (3). After 5 min warm-up

D
running at 6 km·h-1 at 1% inclination the treadmill velocity was increased to 8 km·h-1, and

was increased 1 km·h-1 at each 2-min stage until voluntary exhaustion; subjects were

TE
encouraged to continue to exercise as long as possible. The test was finished when the subject

was not able to maintain the imposed running speed. The speed at the last completed stage

was kept as the MAS (km·h-1).

EP
Wingate test

Wingate test was used to diagnose an anaerobic power output of the tested groups. The test

was conducted on a cycle ergometer Technogym Bike Med (Technogym SpA, Cesena, Italy).
C

This test consisted of a 30 s maximal sprint against a constant braking resistance dependent

on the subjects’ body mass (0.075 kg·kg-1 body mass) according to the optimization tables of
C

Bar-Or (1). The test began from a rolling start, at 60 rpm against minimal resistance. When a

constant pedal rate of 60 rpm was achieved, a countdown of “3-2-1-go!” was given by the
A

investigator. Then, subjects were instructed to pedal as fast as they could during 30 s. During

the test, they were strongly and vigorously exhorted to sprint maximally throughout the 30 s.

The power produced was calculated as the highest value chosen for maximal power. The

average of all measured power values during the Wingate test was taken as mean power. The

values were expressed in absolute values of peak power expressed in Watt (W) or relative

peak power per body weight expressed in Watt per body weight (W·kg-1).

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 10

Training programs

Subjects performed power training three times per week for six weeks with at least one day of

rest between each training day. The training volume increased from three to five sets during

the whole training period. One set was added every two weeks. Subjects completed each

exercise using the optimal load in bench press (i.e., ~30% of 1RM) and high pull (i.e., ~60%

of 1RM) exercises, without load in rebound jumps and against a constant braking resistance

D
dependent on the subjects’ body mass (0.075 kg·kg-1 body mass) on the cycle ergometer. In

every session, the subjects performed each exercise at maximum velocity, and for the bench

TE
press and high pull load was adjusted in the third week. These exercises were chosen to

emphasize major muscle groups, using multi-joint exercises. All training sessions were

supervised by a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (CSCS) to ensure that

EP
volitional fatigue was achieved safely, and the control of the rest was strict.

The content of each program was the same concerning exercise intensity and volume during a

given training phase. Subjects in both experimental groups completed 10 s of each exercise

which allowed to perform a range between five to ten repetitions depending on the exercise,
C

as has been prescribed before (24). Although in this study the repetitions number has not been

recorded during the training period, in a previous study of our laboratory (34) no differences
C

were observed in the number of repetitions performed during a session of TPT and HIPT

using the same protocol. TPT subjects were required to repeat each exercise three to five sets
A

before moving on to the next exercise following the next order: bench press, rebound jumps,

high pull and 10 s Wingate. The rest between exercises was 90 s (Figure 1). This time period

after each set allows for recovery, through oxidative phosphorylation, of the ATP and

phosphocreatine expended during each set (30). During the HIPT program the subjects

executed the training using a short circuit. Circuit training consisted of a series of exercises

performed one after another. Subjects were required to perform three to five rounds using the

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 11

next sequence: bench press, rebound jumps, high pull and 10 s Wingate. The rest between

exercises was 15 s which allowed enough time to move safely between exercises (Figure 1).

The total training time in the TPT group ranged between 18 minutes (3 series) and 30 minutes

(5 series) while in the HIPT group the total training time ranged between ∼5 min (3 series)

and ∼8 min (5 series).

D
***FIGURE 1 NEAR HERE***

TE
Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis of data was performed with SPSS 21.0 for iOX (IBM Corp. Armonk, NY,

USA). Subjects’ physical characteristics are reported as means ± standard deviation. The
EP
normal distribution and homogeneity parameters were checked with Shapiro-Wilk and

Levene tests, respectively. A two way repeated measures (RM) ANOVAs with TIME (pre- to

post-test) and GROUP (TPT vs HIPT vs CG) as factors was performed to analyze the training

related effects. If there were statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) for the time factor,
C

pairwise comparisons were performed to assess pre- to post-test differences for each

individual group. Then, one-way ANOVAs with Tukey’s pairwise post-hoc comparisons
C

were performed on the pre- to post-trial change scores (normalized values relative to the pre-
A

test). The ICCs and typical error of measurement were used to determine the test-retest

reliability of the dependent variables. Significance was accepted when p < 0.05. Power (1-β)

was determined for all variables and effect sizes were reported as partial eta-square (ηp2) and

Cohen’s d. The following criteria for effect sizes were used: <0.35 = trivial, 0.35-0.8 = small,

0.8-1.5 = moderate and >1.5 = large (35).

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 12

RESULTS

The study was based on 29 subjects who were randomly allocated to HIPT (n = 10), TPT (n =

10) and CG (n = 9). Pre-training characteristics of the subjects in each training group are

presented in table 1. No significant differences in any of these characteristics were found

between HIPT, TPT and CG at the beginning of exercise training. No significant differences

were observed in training compliance between HIPT and TPT (95.6 ± 2.3 vs. 94.6 ± 2.9%,

D
respectively).

TE
***TABLE 1 NEAR HERE***

Vertical jump test

EP
The height and peak power of the CMJ are presented in table 2. Two-way ANOVA with

repeated measures revealed a significant time effect for the HIPT (F = 11.915; p = 0.002; ηp2

= 0.33; 1-β = 0.91) and TPT (F = 9.820; p = 0.005; ηp2 = 0.29; 1-β = 0.85) groups, but not CG

(F = 0.944; p = 0.341; ηp2 = 0.04; 1-β = 0.15), for CMJ height. Significant differences were
C

found in peak power of the CMJ between pre- to post-test in the TPT group (F = 7.357; p =

0.012; ηp2 = 0.24; 1-β = 0.74). There were no changes in HIPT group (F = 1.494; p = 0.233;
C

ηp2 = 0.06; 1-β = 0.22), and CG (F = 0.001; p = 0.990; ηp2 = 0.01; 1-β = 0.05). One-way

ANOVA showed that for CMJ height, the increase in HIPT was greater than in CG (p =
A

0.012; d = 1.30). There were no significant differences in the change in height between HIPT

and TPT (p = 0.734; d = 0.45), and TPT and CG (p = 0.062; d = 1.35).

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 13

Maximal strength test

One repetition maximum for the bench press and the high pull are presented in table 2. In

bench press, two-way ANOVA with repeated measures revealed a significant effect of time

for the TPT group (F = 5.079; p = 0.034; ηp2 = 0.17; 1-β = 0.58). There were no changes in

HIPT group (F = 2.389; p = 0.135; ηp2 = 0.09; 1-β = 0.32), and CG (F = 0.027; p = 0.871; ηp2

= 0.01; 1-β = 0.05). In high pull, two-way ANOVA with repeated measures revealed a

D
significant effect of time for the HIPT (F = 15.055; p = 0.001; ηp2 = 0.37; 1-β = 0.96), and

TPT (F = 48.555; p = 0.0001; ηp2 = 0.65; 1-β = 1.00) groups, but not CG (F = 0.016; p =

TE
0.900; ηp2 = 0.01; 1-β = 0.05). One-way ANOVA showed that for high pull exercise, the

increase in HIPT was greater than in CG (p = 0.033; d = 1.60), and the increase in TPT was

greater than CG (p = 0.0001; d = 2.53).

EP
Peak power test

In relation to gains in the peak power (table 2), there were no differences between pre- to

post-test in any groups in bench press exercise (HIPT: F = 3.686; p = 0.066; ηp2 = 0.13; 1-β =
C

0.46; TPT: F = 1.581; p = 0.220; ηp2 = 0.06; 1-β = 0.23; CG: F = 1.806; p = 0.191; ηp2 = 0.07;

1-β = 0.25). In relation to gains in the peak power in high pull, there were differences
C

between pre- to post-test in training groups (HIPT: F = 30.924; p = 0.0001; ηp2 = 0.54; 1-β =

1.00; TPT: F = 56.466; p = 0.0001; ηp2 = 0.69; 1-β = 1.00), but not CG (F = 2.441; p = 0.130;
A

ηp2 = 0.09; 1-β = 0.33). One-way ANOVA showed that for high pull exercise, the increase in

HIPT was greater than in CG (p = 0.0001; d = 2.24), and the increase in TPT was greater than

CG (p = 0.0001; d = 3.93).

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 14

Maximal aerobic speed test

Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures revealed a significant effect of time for changes

in MAS (F = 13.639; p = 0.001; ηp2=0.34; 1-β = 0.95) for the HIPT group (table 2). There

were no changes in this variable in TPT (F = 1.113; p = 0.301; ηp2 = 0.04; 1-β = 0.18) or in

CG (F = 0.001; p = 1.000; ηp2 = 0.01; 1-β = 0.05). One-way ANOVA showed that the

increase in HIPT was greater than in CG (p = 0.047; d = 1.52).

D
Wingate test

TE
Maximum power (Pmax), maximum power relative to body weight (PmaxR), mean power

(Pmean) and mean power relative to body weight (PmeanR) are presented in table 2. In the

training groups, an increase was found in the Pmax (HITP: F = 21.072; p = 0.0001; ηp2 =

0.44; 1-β = 0.99; TPT: F = 11.842; p = 0.002; ηp2 = 0.31; 1-β = 0.91), PmaxR (HIPT: F =
EP
19.649; p = 0.0001; ηp2 = 0.42; 1-β = 0.99; TPT: F = 15.537; p = 0.001; ηp2 = 0.37; 1-β =

0.97), Pmean (HIPT: F = 30.549; p = 0.0001; ηp2 = 0.53; 1-β = 1.00; TPT: F = 27.307; p =

0.0001; ηp2 = 0.51; 1-β = 1.00) and PmeanR (HIPT: F = 28.911; p = 0.0001; ηp2 = 0.52; 1-β =
C

1.00; TPT: F = 31.816; p = 0.0001; ηp2 = 0.54; 1-β = 1.00). One-way ANOVA showed that

the increase in HIPT was greater than in CG in the Pmax (p = 0.004; d = 1.47), PmaxR (p =
C

0.007; d = 1.28), Pmean (p = 0.001; d = 1.80) and PmeanR (p = 0.001; d = 1.53), and the

increase in TPT was greater than CG in the Pmax (p = 0.026; d = 1.27), PmaxR (p = 0.011; d
A

= 1.21), Pmean (p = 0.001; d = 2.75) and PmeanR (p = 0.0001; d = 2.36).

***TABLE 2 NEAR HERE***

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 15

DISCUSSION

The present study aimed to determine the short term effects (six weeks) of a HIPT program in

healthy young active males, and to compare the effects of HIPT to TPT on the aerobic and

anaerobic power as well as strength and power performance. Specifically, whilst we

hypothesized that HIPT would lead to significant improvements in cardiovascular fitness, we

were particularly interested in determining whether strength and power changes would be

D
comparable to those elicited by TPT. The present results clearly demonstrate that HIPT can

be as effective as TPT to elicit improvements in vertical jump performance (i.e. height in

TE
CMJ), strength and power performance in high pull exercise, and anaerobic capacity (power

developed during Wingate test). Interestingly, only HIPT stimulated positive cardiovascular

adaptations in young heathy individuals (i.e. MAS). The present findings are important
EP
because they indicate that HIPT might be a time effective exercise intervention for triggering

multiple positive physiological adaptations.

Jumping ability is an especially useful indicator of physical fitness, and CMJ is a well-

recognized training exercise used to enhance it (9). As shown in the results of this study,
C

there were significant differences in CMJ performance between pre- and post-test in the

experimental groups (HIPT and TPT), while CG remained unchanged. These outcomes have
C

been supported by a multitude of investigations demonstrating improved CMJ performance

after various lower-body power, plyometric, and weight training programs (9, 24, 42). In
A

addition to the existing scientific literature, this is the first study to demonstrate that

improvements in CMJ in response to HIPT were similar to those obtained by TPT. This is of

special interest for time-efficient training strategies design, as training performed by the

HIPT group differed from TPT only in the rest intervals and sequencing between exercises.

While TPT subjects performed the exercises one after the other with a 90 s rest intervals

between each series, HIPT subjects executed the training in a short circuit. Approximately 15

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 16

s separated each exercise, which allowed enough time to move safely between exercises. This

circuit was performed for 3-5 series, and the total training time ranged between 5 min and 8

min, as opposed to the 18-30 min (fourfold) required for completing the TPT.

It is well documented in the literature (22), that the main mechanism that enhances jump

performance from power training is the increase of the ability of individuals to use the neural

and elastic characteristics of the stretch-shortening cycle. After power training, the gradient

D
of the power-time curve during the concentric phase may increase as a result of improved

acceleration throughout the movement (9). The source of this improved acceleration may be

TE
the ability of subjects to generate additional force at the start of the concentric phase, thus

increasing the jump performance (4, 23). These improvements stem from the neuromuscular

adaptations evident with prolonged strength-power training, including increased cross-

EP
sectional area of type II fibers, selective motor unit recruitment, improved firing frequency,

and synchronization (23, 24).

Regarding to the strength and power results, it has been found improvements in both TPT and

HIPT groups, in the bench press and high pull exercises. However, the increments found in
C

1RM and peak power were statistically significant in the high pull exercise (Table 2). On the

other hand, improvements have been achieved in the bench press (~3-4%), but these
C

improvements were not statistically significant. Nevertheless, the training load in the high

pull exercise was much higher (~60% of 1RM) than the load used for the bench press (~30%
A

of 1RM), so we can argue that the training stimulus was more effective to gain muscle

strength and power when higher loads were used (6, 31).

In addition to the changes in muscular power and strength, the present’s results also revealed

an improvement in mechanical power during the Wingate test. This results agree with the

study carried out by Burgomaster et al. (5), who found increases in maximum power after

only two weeks of SIT based on Wingate test, or the study carried out by Hazell et al.(20)

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 17

who found significant increases in anaerobic performance in Wingate test with only three

weeks of SIT with bouts of 10 s of maximal sprint cycling, similar to our study. These

improvements suggests an impact of this training model on anaerobic metabolism, and could

be attributed to a higher content of muscular phosphocreatine (37), increased activity of the

anaerobic enzymes (33) or changes in the motor unit recruitment pattern (10).

Although the main aims of the study were to compare changes in strength and power elicited

D
by HIPT to those achieved with TPT, we also hypothesized that HIPT would promote

substantial improvements in cardiovascular fitness. Such improvements were clearly seen,

TE
despite the shorter training sessions performed by the subjects in HIPT compared to TPT

associated with the need for a high-power production in HIPT. These findings show that

aerobic fitness level could be improved through HIPT, which is in agreement to previous
EP
findings which shown an increase of 13.6% in VO2 max after 10 weeks of similar HIPT

training program (40), and are also in line with most of studies that analysed the effects of

SIT, in which improvements have been shown not only in anaerobic metabolism, but also in

aerobic power (2, 20) for moderately trained subjects. This improvement in MAS could be
C

attributed to an increase in VO2 max provoked by peripheral adaptations (26), like

enhancement of oxidative muscle capacity, maybe due to improvements in mitochondrial

C

density or volume and local enzymatic adaptations as have been seeing after SIT programs

(5, 16). Therefore, despite the anaerobic nature of the HIPT, the aerobic fitness level
A

performance has shown to increase with only 18 sessions of 3-5 min. This suggest that HIPT,

like SIT and other forms of HIIT (39), might be considered as a time-efficient training

modality of training in comparison with continuous endurance training to improve MAS in

active young adults.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 18

In conclusion, we found that both TPT and HIPT are useful training methods to increase

power output and strength in moderately resistance trained young males. Furthermore, HIPT,

due to its high intensity and low recovery, involving large cardiovascular demands elicited

improvements in MAS, probably due to increments in VO2 max similar to those found with

different HIIT protocols. The present findings are important because they indicate that HIPT

training might be a time effective way of triggering multiple positive physiological

D
adaptations in this population. However, our results must be analyzed with caution since

power and strength gains might be blunted by the inclusion of shorter inter-set rest intervals

TE
compared to longer resting periods (38). This study shows adaptations of only six weeks in

moderately trained young males, and although not statistically significant, muscular strength

and power outcomes were higher in TPT group. Thus, it is possible that significant
EP
differences in power and strength outcomes could be reached if training would have been

extended in time due to interference phenomenon. Therefore, future studies will be necessary

to assess the long-term effects of HIPT and determine when and how long it should be used.
C

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

To our knowledge no research has been conducted on the aerobic benefits of a HIPT
C

program. HIPT focuses on high intensity power training using multiple joint exercises, with

little to no focus on traditional aerobic activities. In spite of this, our results show that this
A

type of training also provides aerobic benefits, as well as improvements in muscular strength

and power. It has practical applicability due to the existence of many sports that include

strength and power expressions under predominantly aerobic requirements (e.g., soccer,

basketball). So, training together both qualities would optimize athletic performance similarly

to traditional training but more time-efficiently.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 19

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The researchers are indebted to the Fundación San Antonio for financing this research with

the grant reference n: PMAFI/23/14. We are also grateful to Mª del Carmen Agüera, Cristian

Marín-Pagán, and all the subjects who participated in this research and made this project

possible. The results from this study do not constitute endorsement of the products by the

authors or by the NSCA.

D
REFERENCES

TE
1. Bar-Or O. The Wingate anaerobic test. An update on methodology, reliability and validity.

Sports medicine 4: 381-394, 1987.

2. Barnett C, Carey M, Proietto J, Cerin E, Febbraio MA, and Jenkins D. Muscle metabolism

during sprint exercise in man: influence of sprint training. Journal of science and medicine in
EP
sport / Sports Medicine Australia 7: 314-322, 2004.

3. Billat V, Renoux JC, Pinoteau J, Petit B, and Koralsztein JP. Times to exhaustion at 100% of

velocity at VO2max and modelling of the time-limit/velocity relationship in elite long-

distance runners. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology 69:
C

271-273, 1994.

4. Bobbert MF, Gerritsen KG, Litjens MC, and Van Soest AJ. Why is countermovement jump
C

height greater than squat jump height? Medicine and science in sports and exercise 28: 1402-

1412, 1996.
A

5. Burgomaster KA, Hughes SC, Heigenhauser GJ, Bradwell SN, and Gibala MJ. Six sessions

of sprint interval training increases muscle oxidative potential and cycle endurance capacity

in humans. J Appl Physiol (1985) 98: 1985-1990, 2005.

6. Caiozzo VJ, Perrine JJ, and Edgerton VR. Training-induced alterations of the in vivo force-

velocity relationship of human muscle. Journal of applied physiology: respiratory,

environmental and exercise physiology 51: 750-754, 1981.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 20

7. Cavagna GA. Force platforms as ergometers. Journal of applied physiology 39: 174-179,

1975.

8. Cormie P, McBride JM, and McCaulley GO. Validation of power measurement techniques in

dynamic lower body resistance exercises. Journal of applied biomechanics 23: 103-118,

2007.

9. Cormie P, McBride JM, and McCaulley GO. Power-time, force-time, and velocity-time curve

analysis of the countermovement jump: impact of training. Journal of strength and

D
conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association 23: 177-186, 2009.

10. Creer AR, Ricard MD, Conlee RK, Hoyt GL, and Parcell AC. Neural, metabolic, and

TE
performance adaptations to four weeks of high intensity sprint-interval training in trained

cyclists. International journal of sports medicine 25: 92-98, 2004.

11. Denadai BS, Ortiz MJ, Greco CC, and de Mello MT. Interval training at 95% and 100% of

the velocity at VO2 max: effects on aerobic physiological indexes and running performance.
EP
Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et

metabolisme 31: 737-743, 2006.

12. Dugan EL, Doyle TL, Humphries B, Hasson CJ, and Newton RU. Determining the optimal
C

load for jump squats: a review of methods and calculations. Journal of strength and

conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association 18: 668-674, 2004.
C

13. Esfarjani F and Laursen PB. Manipulating high-intensity interval training: effects on

VO2max, the lactate threshold and 3000 m running performance in moderately trained males.
A

Journal of science and medicine in sport / Sports Medicine Australia 10: 27-35, 2007.

14. Fernández-Fernández J, Sabido-Solana R, Moya D, Sarabia JM, and Moya M. Acute

physiological responses during Crossfit® workouts. Eur J Hum Mov 35: 114-124, 2015.

15. Fyfe JJ, Bishop DJ, and Stepto NK. Interference between concurrent resistance and endurance

exercise: molecular bases and the role of individual training variables. Sports medicine 44:

743-762, 2014.

16. Gibala MJ, Little JP, van Essen M, Wilkin GP, Burgomaster KA, Safdar A, Raha S, and

Tarnopolsky MA. Short-term sprint interval versus traditional endurance training: similar

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 21

initial adaptations in human skeletal muscle and exercise performance. The Journal of

physiology 575: 901-911, 2006.

17. Gibala MJ and McGee SL. Metabolic adaptations to short-term high-intensity interval

training: a little pain for a lot of gain? Exercise and sport sciences reviews 36: 58-63, 2008.

18. Gillen JB and Gibala MJ. Is high-intensity interval training a time-efficient exercise strategy

to improve health and fitness? Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie

appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme 39: 409-412, 2014.

D
19. Gonzalez-Badillo JJ and Marques MC. Relationship between kinematic factors and

countermovement jump height in trained track and field athletes. Journal of strength and

TE
conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association 24: 3443-3447, 2010.

20. Hazell TJ, Macpherson RE, Gravelle BM, and Lemon PW. 10 or 30-s sprint interval training

bouts enhance both aerobic and anaerobic performance. European journal of applied

physiology 110: 153-160, 2010.

EP
21. Helgerud J, Hoydal K, Wang E, Karlsen T, Berg P, Bjerkaas M, Simonsen T, Helgesen C,

Hjorth N, Bach R, and Hoff J. Aerobic high-intensity intervals improve VO2max more than

moderate training. Medicine and science in sports and exercise 39: 665-671, 2007.
C

22. Komi PV. Stretch-shortening cycle: a powerful model to study normal and fatigued muscle.

Journal of biomechanics 33: 1197-1206, 2000.

C

23. Komi PV. Strength and power in sport. Great Britain: Blackwell Science Ltd, 2003.

24. Kyrolainen H, Avela J, McBride JM, Koskinen S, Andersen JL, Sipila S, Takala TE, and
A

Komi PV. Effects of power training on muscle structure and neuromuscular performance.

Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports 15: 58-64, 2005.

25. Laursen PB and Jenkins DG. The scientific basis for high-intensity interval training:

optimising training programmes and maximising performance in highly trained endurance

athletes. Sports medicine 32: 53-73, 2002.

26. Macpherson RE, Hazell TJ, Olver TD, Paterson DH, and Lemon PW. Run sprint interval

training improves aerobic performance but not maximal cardiac output. Medicine and science

in sports and exercise 43: 115-122, 2011.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 22

27. Márquez G, Romero-Arenas S, Marín-Pagán C, Vera-Ibáñez A, Fernandez Del Olmo M, and

Taube W. Peripheral and central fatigue after high intensity resistance circuit training. Muscle

& Nerve In press, 2017.

28. Metcalfe RS, Babraj JA, Fawkner SG, and Vollaard NB. Towards the minimal amount of

exercise for improving metabolic health: beneficial effects of reduced-exertion high-intensity

interval training. European journal of applied physiology 112: 2767-2775, 2012.

29. Midgley AW, McNaughton LR, and Wilkinson M. Is there an optimal training intensity for

D
enhancing the maximal oxygen uptake of distance runners?: empirical research findings,

current opinions, physiological rationale and practical recommendations. Sports medicine 36:

TE
117-132, 2006.

30. Nielsen JS, Madsen K, Jorgensen LV, and Sahlin K. Effects of lengthening contraction on

calcium kinetics and skeletal muscle contractility in humans. Acta physiologica Scandinavica

184: 203-214, 2005.

EP
31. Paoli A, Pacelli F, Bargossi AM, Marcolin G, Guzzinati S, Neri M, Bianco A, and Palma A.

Effects of three distinct protocols of fitness training on body composition, strength and blood

lactate. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness 50: 43-51, 2010.
C

32. Paoli A, Pacelli QF, Moro T, Marcolin G, Neri M, Battaglia G, Sergi G, Bolzetta F, and

Bianco A. Effects of high-intensity circuit training, low-intensity circuit training and

C

endurance training on blood pressure and lipoproteins in middle-aged overweight men. Lipids

in health and disease 12: 131, 2013.

A

33. Parra J, Cadefau JA, Rodas G, Amigo N, and Cusso R. The distribution of rest periods affects

performance and adaptations of energy metabolism induced by high-intensity training in

human muscle. Acta physiologica Scandinavica 169: 157-165, 2000.

34. Poveda P, Soriano M, Ruiz R, Márquez G, and Alcaraz PE. Acute effects of high-intensity

interval training at optimal (power) load vs. traditional optimal load training. Journal of

strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association 28: 126,

2014.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 23

35. Rhea MR. Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength training research

through the use of the effect size. Journal of strength and conditioning research / National

Strength & Conditioning Association 18: 918-920, 2004.

36. Rio-Rodriguez D, Iglesias-Soler E, and Fernandez Del Olmo M. Set Configuration in

Resistance Exercise: Muscle Fatigue and Cardiovascular Effects. PloS one 11: e0151163,

2016.

37. Rodas G, Ventura JL, Cadefau JA, Cusso R, and Parra J. A short training programme for the

D
rapid improvement of both aerobic and anaerobic metabolism. European journal of applied

physiology 82: 480-486, 2000.

TE
38. Schoenfeld BJ, Pope ZK, Benik FM, Hester GM, Sellers J, Nooner JL, Schnaiter JA, Bond-

Williams KE, Carter AS, Ross CL, Just BL, Henselmans M, and Krieger JW. Longer Interset

Rest Periods Enhance Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Resistance-Trained Men. Journal

of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association 30:
EP
1805-1812, 2016.

39. Sloth M, Sloth D, Overgaard K, and Dalgas U. Effects of sprint interval training on VO2max

and aerobic exercise performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scandinavian

C

journal of medicine & science in sports 23: e341-352, 2013.

40. Smith MM, Sommer AJ, Starkoff BE, and Devor ST. Crossfit-based high-intensity power
C

training improves maximal aerobic fitness and body composition. Journal of strength and

conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association 27: 3159-3172, 2013.
A

41. Viñuela-García M, Vera-Ibáñez A, Colomer-Poveda D, Márquez G, and Romero-Arenas S.

Efecto de 12 sesiones de un entrenamiento interválico de alta intensidad sobre la composición

corporal en adultos jóvenes. Nutr Hosp 33: 637-643, 2016.

42. Wilson GJ, Newton RU, Murphy AJ, and Humphries BJ. The optimal training load for the

development of dynamic athletic performance. Medicine and science in sports and exercise

25: 1279-1286, 1993.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 24

Figure legends

Figure 1. Training and set configuration.

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

TABLE 1. Pre-training characteristics of subjects in each training group. Values are given as mean ±

SD.

High-intensity power Traditional power training Control group

training group group (n = 9)

(n = 10) (n = 10)

Age (years) 22.7 ± 3.1 23.4 ± 1.9 23.1 ± 2.5

Weight (kg) 75.0 ± 10.3 76.3 ± 6.7 75.2 ± 9.2

D
Height (cm) 176.2 ± 6.8 177.1 ± 7.6 175.9 ± 8.2

BMI (kg·m-2) 24.2 ± 3.1 24.2 ± 2.9 24.4 ± 2.5

TE
BMI: body mass index.
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

TABLE 2. Performance data. Values are given as mean ± SD.

High-intensity power training group Traditional power training group Control group

(n = 10) (n = 10) (n = 9)

D
Pre Post %∆ Pre Post %∆ Pre Post %∆

TE
Countermovement jump

height (cm) 32.3 ± 5.8 34.3 ± 4.4 † 6.2 ‡ 34.9 ± 3.3 36.7 ± 4.1 † 5.2 30.3 ± 5.8 29.8 ± 5.6 -1.7

Peak power (W) 3815.4 ± 766.1 3926.2 ± 560.8 2.9 3791.1 ± 564.1 4037.2 ± 495.5 † 6.5 3293.1 ± 542.3 3294.1 ± 547.9 0.0

EP
One repetition maximum

Bench press (kg) 72.4 ± 13.8 74.5 ± 12.2 2.9 73.7 ± 10.2 76.7 ± 9.0 † 4.1 71.8 ± 12.7 71.5 ± 9.0 -0.4

High pull (kg) 58.5 ± 11.2 63.4 ± 9.3 † 8.4 ‡ 58.3 ± 8.1 67.1 ± 9.1 † 15.1 ‡ 55.2 ± 10.2 54.8 ± 9.7 -0.7

Peak power
C
C
Bench press (W) 664.3 ± 108.5 691.4 ± 129.3 4.1 651.4 ± 113.1 674.2 ± 110.0 3.5 680.3 ± 120.5 658.3 ± 120.0 -3.2

High pull (W) 1522.8 ± 208.4 1710.4 ± 273.9 † 12.3 ‡ 1444.7 ± 288.1 1698.2 ± 273.9 † 17.5 ‡ 1489.2 ± 263.3 1426.8 ± 249.4 -4.8
A
Maximal aerobic speed

Speed (km·h-1) 17.5 ± 0.8 18.2 ± 0.9 † 4.0 ‡ 17.4 ± 1.5 17.6 ± 1.8 1.1 16.8 ± 1.3 16.8 ± 1.7 0.0

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Wingate

Pmax (W) 811.4 ± 121.0 883.7 ± 134.4 † 8.9 ‡ 810.9 ± 109.6 865.1 ± 112.9 † 6.7 ‡ 720.8 ± 148.5 712.1 ± 150.0 -1.2

PmaxR (W·kg-1) 11.0 ± 1.0 11.9 ± 1.0 † 8.2 ‡ 10.6 ± 1.0 11.4 ± 0.9 † 7.5 ‡ 10.0 ± 1.2 9.9 ± 1.3 -1.0

D
Pmean (W) 662.9 ± 85.9 706.9 ± 96.4 † 6.6 ‡ 637.9 ± 62.2 679.5 ± 66.8 † 6.5 ‡ 585.9 ± 97.5 581.4 ± 95.6 -0.8

TE
PmeanR (W·kg-1) 9.0 ± 0.6 9.6 ± 0.4 † 6.7 ‡ 8.4 ± 0.3 9.0 ± 0.4 † 7.1 ‡ 8.1 ± 0.7 8.1 ± 0.7 0.0

Pmax: maximum power; PmaxR: maximum power relative to body weight; Pmean: mean power; PmeanR: mean power relative to body weight; ∆: change;

†: significant difference from pre- to post-training (p < 0.05); ‡: significantly different from CG (p < 0.05).

EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association