Effect of short-term sprint interval training on human skeletal muscle carbohydrate metabolism during exercise and time-trial performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our laboratory recently showed that six sessions of sprint interval training (SIT) over 2 wk increased muscle oxidative potential and cycle endurance capacity (Burgomaster KA, Hughes SC, Heigenhauser GJF, Bradwell SN, and Gibala MJ. J Appl Physiol 98: 1895-1900, 2005). The present study tested the hypothesis that short-term SIT would reduce skeletal muscle glycogenolysis and lactate accumulation during exercise and increase the capacity for pyruvate oxidation via pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDH). Eight men [peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak)=3.8+/-0.2 l/min] performed six sessions of SIT (4-7x30-s "all-out" cycling with 4 min of recovery) over 2 wk. Before and after SIT, biopsies (vastus lateralis) were obtained at rest and after each stage of a two-stage cycling test that consisted of 10 min at approximately 60% followed by 10 min at approximately 90% of VO2 peak. Subjects also performed a 250-kJ time trial (TT) before and after SIT to assess changes in cycling performance. SIT increased muscle glycogen content by approximately 50% (main effect, P=0.04) and the maximal activity of citrate synthase (posttraining: 7.8+/-0.4 vs. pretraining: 7.0+/-0.4 mol.kg protein -1.h-1; P=0.04), but the maximal activity of 3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase was unchanged (posttraining: 5.1+/-0.7 vs. pretraining: 4.9+/-0.6 mol.kg protein -1.h-1; P=0.76). The active form of PDH was higher after training (main effect, P=0.04), and net muscle glycogenolysis (posttraining: 100+/-16 vs. pretraining: 139+/-11 mmol/kg dry wt; P=0.03) and lactate accumulation (posttraining: 55+/-2 vs. pretraining: 63+/-1 mmol/kg dry wt; P=0.03) during exercise were reduced. TT performance improved by 9.6% after training (posttraining: 15.5+/-0.5 vs. pretraining: 17.2+/-1.0 min; P=0.006), and a control group (n=8, VO2 peak=3.9+/-0.2 l/min) showed no change in performance when tested 2 wk apart without SIT (posttraining: 18.8+/-1.2 vs. pretraining: 18.9+/-1.2 min; P=0.74). We conclude that short-term SIT improved cycling TT performance and resulted in a closer matching of glycogenolytic flux and pyruvate oxidation during submaximal exercise.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".