Effects of Sprint versus High-Intensity Aerobic Interval Training on Cross-Country Mountain Biking Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES: The current study compared the effects of high-intensity aerobic training (HIT) and sprint interval training (SIT) on mountain biking (MTB) race simulation performance and physiological variables, including peak power output (PPO), lactate threshold (LT) and onset of blood lactate accumulation (OBLA). METHODS: Sixteen mountain bikers (mean ± SD: age 32.1 ± 6.4 yr, body mass 69.2 ± 5.3 kg and VO(2max) 63.4 ± 4.5 mL∙kg(-1)∙min(-1)) completed graded exercise and MTB performance tests before and after six weeks of training. The HIT (7–10 x [4–6 min—highest sustainable intensity / 4–6 min—CR100 10–15]) and SIT (8–12 x [30 s—all-out intensity / 4 min—CR100 10–15]) protocols were included in the participants’ regular training programs three times per week. RESULTS: Post-training analysis showed no significant differences between training modalities (HIT vs. SIT) in body mass, PPO, LT or OBLA (p = 0.30 to 0.94). The Cohen’s d effect size (ES) showed trivial to small effects on group factor (p = 0.00 to 0.56). The interaction between MTB race time and training modality was almost significant (p = 0.08), with a smaller ES in HIT vs. SIT training (ES = -0.43). A time main effect (pre- vs. post-phases) was observed in MTB race performance and in several physiological variables (p = 0.001 to 0.046). Co-variance analysis revealed that the HIT (p = 0.043) group had significantly better MTB race performance measures than the SIT group. Furthermore, magnitude-based inferences showed HIT to be of likely greater benefit (83.5%) with a lower probability of harmful effects (0.8%) compared to SIT. CONCLUSION: The results of the current study suggest that six weeks of either HIT or SIT may be effective at increasing MTB race performance; however, HIT may be a preferable strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01944865