Inter-Individual Different Responses to Continuous and Interval Training in Recreational Middle-Aged Women Runners

• Main Authors: Jèssica B. Bonet, José Magalhães, Ginés Viscor, Teresa Pagès, Josep L. Ventura, Joan R. Torrella, Casimiro Javierre
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-10-01
• Series: Frontiers in Physiology
• Subjects: middle-aged women; half-marathon runners; high intensity interval training; exercise and sport; moderate intense endurance exercise training; non-responder
• Online Access: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2020.579835/full

A crucial subject in sports is identifying the inter-individual variation in response to training, which would allow creating individualized pre-training schedules, improving runner’s performance. We aimed to analyze heterogeneity in individual responses to two half-marathon training programs differing in running volume and intensity in middle-aged recreational women. 20 women (40 ± 7 years, 61 ± 7 kg, 167 ± 6 cm, and VO2max = 48 ± 6 mL⋅kg–1⋅min–1) underwent either moderate-intensity continuous (MICT) or high-intensity interval (HIIT) 12-week training. They were evaluated before and after training with maximal incremental tests in the laboratory (VO2max) and in the field (time to exhaustion, TTE; short interval series and long run). All the women participated in the same half-marathon and their finishing times were compared with their previous times. Although the improvements in the mean finishing times were not significant, MICT elicited a greater reduction (3 min 50 s, P = 0.298), with more women (70%) improving on their previous times, than HIIT (reduction of 2 min 34 s, P = 0.197, 50% responders). Laboratory tests showed more differences in the HIIT group (P = 0.008), while both groups presented homogeneous significant (P < 0.05) increases in TTE. Both in the short interval series and in the long run, HIIT induced better individual improvements, with a greater percentage of responders compared to MICT (100% vs 50% in the short series and 78% vs 38% in the long run). In conclusion, variability in inter-individual responses was observed after both MICT and HIIT, with some participants showing improvements (responders) while others did not (non-responders) in different performance parameters, reinforcing the idea that individualized training prescription is needed to optimize performance.