Abstract
on: Running performance is largely influenced by training methods, including Continuous, Interval, and combined training methods. However, which training method that best improves the performance has not been identified. Aim: This study was to investigate how training methods continuous, interval, and combined training affect distance running performance. Methods: A total of thirty (n=30) athletes from the Ethiopia Hotel Athletics Club were selected as subjects. The studies included trained runners without previous injuries. Interventions lasted at least 12 weeks, with participants allocated to Interval, Continuous or combined training groups. The athletes' performance was assessed through cooper 12 min run test, wall squat test and multiple sprint test using pre- and posttest interventions. MANOVA was performed using SPSS to determine the mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIS) between continuous, interval (CIS), and combined training, and the effect sizes were calculated. Results: All training methods significantly im- proved VO2max, strength endurance, and speed. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the interval and combined train- ing during the VO2max test (MD = 0.2, P > 0.1). There was no significant difference between continuous and interval training during the posttests VO2max test. During the wall squat test, there was no significant difference between the training methods (p > 0.1). More- over, there were no significant differences between the continuous and combined, training groups or between the interval and combined training groups at the level of the multiple sprint test (p = 1, MD = 0.53). However, there was a significant difference between the con- tinuous and interval training groups on the multiple sprint test (P = 0.024, MD = -1.75), with an effect
no significant differences between the continuous and combined, training groups or between the interval and combined training groups at the level of the multiple sprint test (p = 1, MD = 0.53). However, there was a significant difference between the con- tinuous and interval training groups on the multiple sprint test (P = 0.024, MD = -1.75), with an effect size was 0.356. Conclusion: Interval and combined training are better strategies than continuous training for improving athlete performance. Key words: Athletics, continuous, interval, combined training methods, performance Resumen. Introducción: El rendimiento en carrera se ve influido en gran medida por los métodos de entrenamiento, entre los que se incluyen el entrenamiento continuo, por intervalos y combinado. Sin embargo, no se ha identificado qué método de entrenamiento mejo- ra mejor el rendimiento. Objetivo: Este estudio tenía como objetivo investigar cómo los métodos de entrenamiento continuo, por inter- valos y combinado afectan al rendimiento en carreras de distancia. Métodos: Un total de treinta (n=30) atletas del Ethiopia Hotel Athle- tics Club fueron seleccionados como sujetos. Se incluyeron corredores entrenados sin lesiones previas. Las intervenciones duraron al menos 12 semanas, y los participantes fueron asignados a grupos de entrenamiento por intervalos, continuo o combinado. El rendimiento de los atletas se evaluó mediante la prueba de carrera de Cooper de 12 minutos, la prueba de sentadillas en la pared y la prueba de sprints múltiples mediante intervenciones antes y después de la prueba. Se realizó un MANOVA con SPSS para determinar la diferencia de me- dias con intervalos de confianza del 95% (CIS) entre el entrenamiento continuo, por intervalos (CIS) y combinado, y se calcularon los tamaños del efecto. Resultados: Todos los métodos de entrenamiento mejoraron significativamente el VO2máx, la resistencia a la fuerza y la velocidad. Además, no hubo diferencias significativas entre el entrenamiento a intervalos y el combinado durante la prueba de VO2máx (DM = 0,2, P > 0,1). No hubo diferencias significativas entre el entrenamiento continuo y el de intervalos durante la prueba de VO2máx postest. Durante la prueba de sentadilla de pared, no hubo diferencias significativas entre los métodos de
y la velocidad. Además, no hubo diferencias significativas entre el entrenamiento a intervalos y el combinado durante la prueba de VO2máx (DM = 0,2, P > 0,1). No hubo diferencias significativas entre el entrenamiento continuo y el de intervalos durante la prueba de VO2máx postest. Durante la prueba de sentadilla de pared, no hubo diferencias significativas entre los métodos de entrenamiento (p > 0,1). Ade- más, no hubo diferencias significativas entre los grupos de entrenamiento continuo y combinado ni entre los grupos de entrenamiento por intervalos y combinado en la prueba de sprint múltiple (p = 1, DM = 0,53). Sin embargo, hubo una diferencia significativa entre los grupos de entrenamiento continuo y de intervalo en la prueba de sprint múltiple (p = 0,024, DM = -1,75), con un tamaño del efecto de 0,356. Conclusiones: El entrenamiento por intervalos y el entrenamiento combinado son mejores estrategias que el entrenamiento conti- nuo para mejorar el rendimiento de los atletas. Palabras clave: Atletismo, continuo, intervalo, métodos combinados de entrenamiento, rendimiento. Fecha recepción: 21-11-23. Fecha de aceptación: 03-06-24 Yared Tegegne Nigussie tegegneyared72@gmail.com Introduction Success in athletic , especially in middle- to long-distance running is known to be determined by physiological parame- ters such as maximal aerobic power (V̇O2max), sustainable percentage of V̇O2max, velocity at lactate threshold (LT), velocity at VO2max, and running economy (RE) (Yalcin, Sahin, Coskun, & Yalcin, 2022). Training methods to im- prove these determinants of performance have been devel- oped with varying success, with two modes of training typi- cally identified: continuous training and interval training (Gonzalez-Mohino et al., 2016) . Both methods of training elicit physiological adaptations that facilitate endurance per- formance, however, the physiological structures targeted differ (Iaia & Bangsbo, 2010) Therefore, continuous running is one of the usual training methods in which the athletes continuously perform long distances without a break during a training program. Indeed, continuous training has many
2024, Retos, 58, 418-425 © Copyright: Federación Española de Asociaciones de Docentes de Educación Física (FEADEF) ISSN: Edición impresa: 1579-1726. Edición Web: 1988-2041 (https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/retos/index) -419- Retos, número 58, 2024 (septiembre) advantages to improve and increase the capacity for their performance, viz., cardiovascular, respiratory, maximum oxygen uptake, capillary network, mitochondrial enzymes in aerobic energy systems, and also increase the energy- producing system (Mazoochi, Fateminezhad, & Mazoochi, 2013). Whereas interval training method is characterized by repeated high-intensity efforts (above ventilatory threshold2) interspersed with periods of recovery (Zafeiridis, Sarivasiliou, Dipla, & Vrabas, 2010). Although much is known about the physiological effects of training on endur- ance performance, there is a lack of information relating to the interval training practices of elite endurance runners (Parmar, Jones, & Hayes, 2021). Even though success in athletics performance is linked to several elements, training plays better than others factors (Smart & Steele, 2012). In fact athlete’s endurance, accord- ing to the type of exercise, is affected by factors such as aerobic power, efficiency, biomechanical, neuromuscular and cardiovascular adaptations, anaerobic power, lactate threshold and adaptation of the endocrine system (Mazoochi et al., 2013). Therefore, the physiological differences be- tween elite and novice athletes’ endurance depend on train- ing methods they use (Mazoochi et al., 2013). Therefore coaches and athletes are constantly employing several training methods, continuous and interval training methods, for improving athletes' fitness level based on phys- iology and exercise science (Mazoochi et al., 2015). Interval training is one of the best training methods which a practice interchangeably between training and work with break period at low intensity in a training platform, that may give many benefits as follows:- careful in controlling the strain occurred, as the systematic approach day by day will enable and easy to observe the progress, further in improv- ing the potential energy than the other condition method, the training program can be implemented everywhere and no need special instruments,(MacInnis & Gibala, 2017; Yunus, Wahjuni, & Supriatna, 2019). Viz .a viz to applying interval training, coaches and athletes must consider the five principles as a major concern to improve performance, such as size
observe the progress, further in improv- ing the potential energy than the other condition method, the training program can be implemented everywhere and no need special instruments,(MacInnis & Gibala, 2017; Yunus, Wahjuni, & Supriatna, 2019). Viz .a viz to applying interval training, coaches and athletes must consider the five principles as a major concern to improve performance, such as size and distance of work interval, repetition of each train- ing, interrupt or time between work interval, activities during the interrupt interval, and training frequency per weeks (Yunus et al., 2019).Whereas high intensity training (HIT) involves repeated short-to- long bouts of rather high- intensity exercise interspersed with recovery periods and has been used by athletes for almost a century now. For exam- ple, in 1920, Paavo Nurmi, one of the best middle- and long-distance runners in the world at that time, was already using some form of HIT in his training routines (Buchheit & Laursen, 2013). Because of its alleged and proven ad- vantages, high-intensity interval training, or HIIT, has gained popularity in the realms of athletics, fitness, and rehabilita- tion. Short bursts of high-intensity training typically defined as at least 90% of VO2peak—are combined with shorter rest intervals to form the high-intensity interval training (HIIT) training protocol (Girard, Feng, & Chapman, 2018). It is also important to note that few studies have com- pared the effects of continuous training versus interval train- ing on the performance of middle- and long-distance run- ners. There is evidence that continuous exercise improves endurance performance, Vo2max, capillary density, oxidative enzyme activity, and plasma volume in individuals without training; however, it is ineffective in people with training. It has been argued by the researcher that interval training is a more effective way of enhancing Vo2Max in trained athletes than continuous training (Mazoochi et al., 2013). However, both continuous and interval training method significantly improve VO2 max, similarly (Gharbi et al., 2008; Yunus et al., 2019). However, another researcher has found that interval method improves VO2max much more than continu- ous training (Boullosa et al., 2020; Mande, 2016). Even though the training methods were balanced and
in trained athletes than continuous training (Mazoochi et al., 2013). However, both continuous and interval training method significantly improve VO2 max, similarly (Gharbi et al., 2008; Yunus et al., 2019). However, another researcher has found that interval method improves VO2max much more than continu- ous training (Boullosa et al., 2020; Mande, 2016). Even though the training methods were balanced and did not receive the same stimulus, interval training resulted in much higher gains in VO2max than continuous training (MacInnis & Gibala, 2017). Both continuous training and interval train- ing improve aerobic fitness (endurance), it is still unclear whether continuous and interval training can improve an athlete’s aerobic capacity more effectively (Grivas, 2020). Remarkably, much previous research on continuous, inter- val, and combination training has focused on verifying that there is still uncertainty about how to improve athletes' performance, particularly in raising vo2max.As a result, this study looked into how distance running performance was affected by 12 weeks of continuous, interval, and combined training. This study expected that interval and combined training might significantly improve distance running per- formance. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate how training methods continuous, interval, and combined training affect distance running performance. Methods Study design and participants The study's design was quasi-experimental. The study was conducted the Sekela Woreda in the West Gojam zone by the ethiopian hotel athletics. ethiopia hotel athletics club athletes participating in these events were randomly selected and invited to participate in the study according to the three training groups. The participants (17.53±0.34years) were informed about the purpose of the study and the research protocol, and they signed informed consent forms. Thirty athletes were examined in between November December 2022.The participants’ training regimes and demographic characteristics are presented in figure 1. The study has been approved by the ethical committee review board (No. 1182/2022)
2024, Retos, 58, 418-425 © Copyright: Federación Española de Asociaciones de Docentes de Educación Física (FEADEF) ISSN: Edición impresa: 1579-1726. Edición Web: 1988-2041 (https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/retos/index) -420- Retos, número 58, 2024 (septiembre) Figure 1. Training methods and its intervention periods After having obtained ethical approval from Bahir Dar University Sport Academy and the Research Council Ap- proval Committee, the researcher prepared a concept for the clubs that would allow the athletes to participate in the study. Before the measurements began, the researcher had explained the procedure for conducting the test, and the objective of the study had also been presented. In direct contact with the participants, the researcher had explained the training procedure for the participants and how to per- form the tests at the scheduled time. The test is conducted twice, with a pretest and a posttest of VO2max test, wall squat test, and multiple sprint tests. In the study, subjects were exposed to three treatment conditions for 12 weeks. During the treatment, the middle- and long-distance runners receive one continuous, one interval, and one combined continuous and interval training for each group. A training frequency of three days per week, lasting from 30 minutes to one hour, is likely to produce the best results (Gordon, 2009). Training procedures Before the study began, all subjects were introduced to the staff who carried out the study and all the experimental procedures, and were subsequently tested on three different days on their training field. On the first day, vo2max was measured with measured using the Cooper test (a 12-minute running test). This test checks how far an athlete can run/walk in 12 min, and the assistant is responsible for re- cording the total distance covered. The performance evalua- tion was based on the distance covered. The athlete’s VO2max can be calculated using the following formula: VO2max = (distance traveled in meters-504.9) ÷44.73. This procedure was explained by a pediatrician who su- pervised all the procedures, which were performed respect- ing the privacy of the participants and promoting their com- fort level during the evaluation. The process was carried out for an athlete can
distance covered. The athlete’s VO2max can be calculated using the following formula: VO2max = (distance traveled in meters-504.9) ÷44.73. This procedure was explained by a pediatrician who su- pervised all the procedures, which were performed respect- ing the privacy of the participants and promoting their com- fort level during the evaluation. The process was carried out for an athlete can run in 12 min in a specially assigned 400m track. On the second day, strength endurance was measured using a wall squat test (Mackenzie, 2005). Subjects were instructed to stand comfortably with both feet shoulder- width apart, backs against a smooth wall. They then slid their backs down the wall until their hips and knees formed 90-degree angles. In this position, they lifted one foot 5 cm off the ground. All measurements were conducted between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. on the same day of the week (Thursday) by the same field assistant. For comfort and accurate measurement, athletes wore only underwear during the test. Finally, the results of the wall squat test were compared with previously collected data from other tests to assess strength endurance. On the third day, a multiple sprint test was conducted to measure the athletes' speed (Mackenzie, 2005). Each athlete performed six 40-meter sprints with a 30-second recovery period between each. Their times were recorded, and the procedure was repeated three times. The average time was then calculated. To estimate the optimal sprint time, the researchers took the fastest individual time and multiplied it by six. All measurements were taken under standardized condi- tions by specially trained researchers and coaching staff. Notably, the same investigator conducted both pre- and post-test measurements to minimize variability. To avoid circadian variation in the parameters, the measurements after the observation period were performed at the same time each day. Additionally, to eliminate external influ- ences, coaches instructed participants to avoid intense exer- cise, caffeine consumption, and alcohol for 12 hours prior to the pre-test day. Data Analysis Normality of the data was assessed using the Shapiro– Wilk test, and the homogeneity of the variance was also determined using the Levene
period were performed at the same time each day. Additionally, to eliminate external influ- ences, coaches instructed participants to avoid intense exer- cise, caffeine consumption, and alcohol for 12 hours prior to the pre-test day. Data Analysis Normality of the data was assessed using the Shapiro– Wilk test, and the homogeneity of the variance was also determined using the Levene test. A MANOVA (differences in pre- and post-test scores between groups) was used. The results were reported as mean and standard deviation (M±SD) and mean difference (MD). The level of signifi- cance was set at α=0.05, P < .05. When statistically signifi- cant p-values were found, post hoc multiple comparisons with Bonferroni post hoc with adjusted correction were used to identify specific differences between groups. Results 30 athletes completed the study without mentioning any harm they may have suffered as a result of the intervention training session. According to the Shapiro-Wilk test and Levene test, all variables appeared to have a normal and homogeneous distribution. The MANOVA results for CT, ITG, and CMTG revealed statistically significant differences before and after the start of the training program.
2024, Retos, 58, 418-425 © Copyright: Federación Española de Asociaciones de Docentes de Educación Física (FEADEF) ISSN: Edición impresa: 1579-1726. Edición Web: 1988-2041 (https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/retos/index) -421- Retos, número 58, 2024 (septiembre) Table 1. Estimated marginal mean of participants on the variables Dependent Variable GP Mean SE CI Lower Bound Upper Bound pretest of vo2max Continuous Training 53.761 .240 53.269 54.253 Interval Training 53.979 .240 53.487 54.471 Combined Training 54.283 .240 53.791 54.775 posttest of vo2max Continuous Training 57.000 .413 56.153 57.847 Interval Training 59.400 .413 58.553 60.247 Combined Training 59.200 .413 58.353 60.047 pretest of strength endurance Continuous Training 105.300 1.321 102.589 108.011 Interval Training 106.500 1.321 103.789 109.211 Combined Training 106.100 1.321 103.389 108.811 posttest of strength endurance Continuous Training 107.900 1.279 105.275 110.525 Interval Training 108.300 1.279 105.675 110.925 Combined Training 107.900 1.279 105.275 110.525 pretest of speed Continuous Training 37.320 .491 36.313 38.327 Interval Training 36.660 .491 35.653 37.667 Combined Training 37.380 .491 36.373 38.387 Posttest of speed Continuous Training 37.440 .433 36.552 38.328 Interval Training 35.160 .433 34.272 36.048 Combined Training 36.910 .433 36.022 37.798 Note: GP = (group of participants), SE = (Std. Error),CI = (95% confidence interval). The results of the table 1 show that all three groups of athletes improved their performance in all three variables after the start of the training program. However, the combined training group showed the greatest improvement in VO2max and strength endurance, whereas the interval training group showed the greatest improvement in speed. Overall, the results of the table suggest that the combined training program is the most effective for improving overall athletic performance. However, the interval training program may be more beneficial for athletes who are specifically interested in improving their speed. Table 2. The combinations of training methods with in the groups. Effect Value F HD Sig. PES OP Intercept Pillai's Trace 1.000 34687.389 b 3.000 25.000 .000 1.000 1.000 Wilks' Lambda .000 34687.389 b 3.000 25.000 .000 1.000 1.000 Hotelling's Trace 4162.487 34687.389 b 3.000 25.000 .000 1.000 1.000 Roy's Largest Root 4162.487 34687.389 b 3.000 25.000 .000 1.000 1.000 Group Pillai's Trace .679 4.451 6.000
methods with in the groups. Effect Value F HD Sig. PES OP Intercept Pillai's Trace 1.000 34687.389 b 3.000 25.000 .000 1.000 1.000 Wilks' Lambda .000 34687.389 b 3.000 25.000 .000 1.000 1.000 Hotelling's Trace 4162.487 34687.389 b 3.000 25.000 .000 1.000 1.000 Roy's Largest Root 4162.487 34687.389 b 3.000 25.000 .000 1.000 1.000 Group Pillai's Trace .679 4.451 6.000 52.000 .001 .339 .973 Wilks' Lambda A.414 B4.613 b C6.000 D50.000 E.001 F.356 H.977 Hotelling's Trace 1.189 4.757 6.000 48.000 .001 .373 .980 Roy's Largest Root .954 8.268 c 3.000 26.000 .001 .488 .982 Note: Hd = (Hypothesis df), Ed = (Error df), PES = (Partial Eta Squared), OP = (Observed Power). The MANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference among the three groups in terms of Vo2max, strength endurance, and speed on the basis of the combined dependent variable (Wilks’ A=414, F (6,50) = 4.613, p<05 Partial Eta =.356, observed power =.977= 27.677). Based on these results, there is sufficient evidence to support the rejection of the null hypothesis and that athlete performance, as measured by the Cooper test, strength endurance test, and speed test, significantly differs based on the type of training used to improve athlete performance. The effect size was large. The observed power was .977, including a 100% chance that the results would be significant. Table 3. Analysis MANOVA tests of between subjects on the athlete’s performance variable in addition to the standardized effects sizes (partial eta squared). Source DV TSS df MS F Sig. PES OP Corrected Model post Test of vo2max 35.467 a 2 17.733 10.409 .000 .435 .978 posttest of strength endurance 1.067 b 2 .533 .033 .968 .002 .054 Posttest of speed 28.473 c 2 14.236 7.600 .002 .360 .920 Intercept post Test of vo2max 102784.533 1 102784.533 60330.052 .000 1.000 1.000 posttest of strength endurance 350136.033 1 350136.033 21393.240 .000 .999 1.000 Posttest of speed 39974.800 1 39974.800 21340.127 .000 .999 1.000 Group post Test of vo2max A35.467 B2 C17.733 D10.409 E.000 F.435 H.978 posttest of strength endurance 1.067 2 .533 .033 .968 .002 .054 Posttest of speed 28.473
Intercept post Test of vo2max 102784.533 1 102784.533 60330.052 .000 1.000 1.000 posttest of strength endurance 350136.033 1 350136.033 21393.240 .000 .999 1.000 Posttest of speed 39974.800 1 39974.800 21340.127 .000 .999 1.000 Group post Test of vo2max A35.467 B2 C17.733 D10.409 E.000 F.435 H.978 posttest of strength endurance 1.067 2 .533 .033 .968 .002 .054 Posttest of speed 28.473 2 14.236 7.600 .002 .360 .920
Description
The study compares training methods' effects on runners' performance metrics.