RESEARCH ARTICLE CRITQUE

 

Read the peer reviewed journal article entitled “The Effects of High Intensity Interval Training vs Steady State Training on Aerobic and Anaerobic Capacity” and answer the following questions.

 

1. Citation - What is the full APA reference citation of this article?

            Foster, C., Farland, C. V., Guidotti, F., Harbin, M., Roberts, B., Schuette, J., ... & Porcari, J. P. (2015). The effects of high intensity interval training vs steady state training on aerobic and anaerobic capacity. Journal of sports science & medicine, 14(4), 747.

1. Abstract - Read the abstract for this article and summarize what you think the article is about in 1-2 sentences.

            The study offers a discussion of High intensity interval training (HIIT) as one of the most popular exercise strategy today because of its intense implications on exercise ability and time convenience. Thus the article sought to undertake an in-depth analysis of the effects of HIIT process and determine its superiority with respect to exercise. 

1. Purpose - What was the general purpose of the study?

            The main purpose of the study was to conduct a comparative analysis between the implications of HIIT protocols over Steady-state exercise on aerobic and anaerobic dimensions in a span of 8 weeks of work out. This would determine whether HIIT is a superior exercise form among individuals in addition to the fact that it saves time over the conventional strategies.

1. Participants - Who was studied (age, sex, fitness level)? How many participants?

            55 untrained participants participated in the study. The participants were all college aged of between 18 and 28 years who were indiscriminately assigned to three different training groups. The participants were both males and females and each attended 24 exercise sessions within the 8 weeks.

1. Research Methods - In sequential order, what were the major steps in performing the study?

            65 participants volunteered to take part in the study which included 23 males and 42 females. To understand the purpose and risks of the study and activity readiness survey was administered to them through a questionnaire before their participation. For eligibility the participants were required to exercise for a maximum of two times every week for three months before the training at low up to moderate exercising intensity. Those that failed to meet the standards were eliminated. Several tests such as respiratory metabolism and aerobic and anaerobic capacity were measured frequently as well as a weekly exercise enjoyment scaling to determine their level of enjoyment.

1. Training/Protocol – Describe each method of the training (steady state, Tabata, Myers) and protocol (time/session, days/week, total weeks training).

            Post pre-testing the participant’s capacity was scaled in accordance to Combined Exercise Capacity (CEC) but the ranking was separate for both male and female. This resulted into a classification of groups which were assigned unsystematically to the participants with measures of steady-state, high intensity and moderate intensity training intervals. Training was offered on automatically braked ergometers. 5 minute for warming up and cooling down were offered to all the groups. Steady-state training lasted for 20 minutes of consistent workout which was assigned between a moderate to vital exercise intensity. Meyer training also took 20 minutes with exercise intervals of about 30 seconds. Tabata training on the other hand comprised of 20 seconds of exercise for all the eight sets. Participants of Meyer and Steady stated pedaled at tempo of 80rpm while those of Tabata were subjected to 90 rpm during the loaded exercise period.

 

1. Results – What were the results of aerobic fitness (VO2max & Peak Aerobic Power), anaerobic fitness (Wingate PPO & Wingate MPO), and overall fitness (Combined Exercise Capacity) for each group before and after training?

            Progressive rise in training PO was observed in all the three groups which accounted to 50W for the Steady-state, 45 W for Meyer and 70 W for the Tabata group. With regard to CEC there was a 6 to 10 percent increase that originated from training across the three groups equally.

1. Discussion – What do the results indicate about these 3 different methods of training? Does this study support or contradict other literature on the same topic?

            The study found out that there is a substantial correspondence of increases for aerobic and anaerobic work out performances in the groups. This contradicts the common arguments among literature pieces of higher responses post high intensity work out training routines. Within the group of untrained youths there was no benefit that was acquired from high intensity training.

1. Limitations – What are the limitations to this study (subjects recruited, data analysis, number of subjects, etc)?

            There are several limitations to this study. In that the study recruited untrained youths to participate in the exercise routine which might have affected the outcome of the investigation. In addition, the number of participants was low which might not reflect on the actual response of individuals to HIIT.

1. Conclusions - What is your take home message from this article? How can this information be applied to the population you might be working with?

            It is evident from the article that, despite the fact that HIIT procedures are beneficial when it comes to time efficiency, they are less dominant to conservative exercise training methods in inactive youths. Thus, for a group that I am working with the information is useful since it is clear that for untrained persons the approach would be less effective.