Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
dc.contributor.author | Muñoz Pérez, Iker | spa |
dc.contributor.author | Seiler, Stephen | spa |
dc.contributor.author | Bautista, Javier | spa |
dc.contributor.author | España, Javier | spa |
dc.contributor.author | Larumbe Zabala, Eneko | spa |
dc.contributor.author | Esteve Lanao, Jonathan | spa |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-03-18T10:07:02Z | |
dc.date.available | 2014-03-18T10:07:02Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | spa |
dc.identifier.citation | Muñoz, I., Seiler, S., Bautista, J., España, J., Larumbe, E., & Esteve-Lanao, J. (2014). Does polarized training improve performance in recreational runners? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 9(2), 265-272. | spa |
dc.identifier.issn | 15550265 | spa |
dc.identifier.issn | 15550265 | spa |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11268/1931 | |
dc.description.abstract | PURPOSE: To quantify the impact of training-intensity distribution on 10K performance in recreational athletes. METHODS: 30 endurance runners were randomly assigned to a training program emphasizing low-intensity, sub-ventilatory-threshold (VT), polarized endurance-training distribution (PET) or a moderately high-intensity (between-thresholds) endurance-training program (BThET). Before the study, the subjects performed a maximal exercise test to determine VT and respiratory-compensation threshold (RCT), which allowed training to be controlled based on heart rate during each training session over the 10-wk intervention period. Subjects performed a 10-km race on the same course before and after the intervention period. Training was quantified based on the cumulative time spent in 3 intensity zones: zone 1 (low intensity, <VT), zone 2 (moderate intensity, between VT and RCT), and zone 3 (high intensity, >RCT). The contribution of total training time in each zone was controlled to have more low-intensity training in PET (±77/3/20), whereas for BThET the distribution was higher in zone 2 and lower in zone 1 (±46/35/19). RESULTS: Both groups significantly improved their 10K time (39min18s ± 4min54s vs 37min19s ± 4min42s, P < .0001 for PET; 39min24s ± 3min54s vs 38min0s ± 4min24s, P < .001 for BThET). Improvements were 5.0% vs 3.6%, ~41 s difference at post-training-intervention. This difference was not significant. However, a subset analysis comparing the 12 runners who actually performed the most PET (n = 6) and BThET (n = 16) distributions showed greater improvement in PET by 1.29 standardized Cohen effect-size units (90% CI 0.31-2.27, P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: Polarized training can stimulate greater training effects than between-thresholds training in recreational runners. | spa |
dc.language.iso | eng | spa |
dc.title | Does Polarized Training Improve Performance in Recreational Runners? | spa |
dc.type | article | spa |
dc.description.impact | 2.662 JCR (2014) Q1, 13/81 Sport sciences; Q2, 34/83 Physiology | spa |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1123/ijspp.2012-0350 | spa |
dc.rights.accessRights | closedAccess | en |
dc.subject.unesco | Deporte | spa |
dc.subject.unesco | Fisiología humana | spa |
dc.description.filiation | UEM | spa |
dc.peerreviewed | Si | spa |
Ficheros | Tamaño | Formato | Ver |
---|---|---|---|
No hay ficheros asociados a este ítem. |