Given the wide variety of conditioning program trainings employed, the present study compared the catabolic effects induced by CrossFit® and resistance training in moderately trained subjects. Twenty males joined either the CrossFit® group (n = 10; 30 min/day of “workout of the day”) or the resistance training (RT) group (n = 10; 30 min/day of resistance exercises) thrice a week, for 8 weeks. Salivary levels of cortisol, interleukin 1-beta (IL-1β), and uric acid were assessed via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays before (PRE) and 30-min after (POST) SESSION 1 and SESSION 24. Variables’ percentual changes were computed as (POST-PRE)/PRE*100 in each session (Δ%). CrossFit® acutely increased cortisol levels in both sessions, with a significant decrease in Δ%cortisol from SESSION 1 to 24. In the RT group, cortisol values decreased in both sessions, only acutely. A significant decrease in IL-1β levels was registered acutely in both groups, in both sessions, whereas Δ%IL-1β was not different between the two groups. While uric acid levels increased in both groups acutely, a chronic downregulation of Δ%uric acid, from SESSION 1 to 24, was appreciated for the RT group only. Overall, CrossFit® appeared to induce more intense effects than the RT program as to the investigated catabolic responses.

Purpose: To investigate the effects of bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex high-definition transcranial direct-current stimulation (HD-tDCS) on physiological and performance responses during exercise at the upper limit of the severe-intensity exercise domain in elite-level road cyclists. Methods: Eleven elite-level road cyclists (VO2peak: 71.8 [3.1] mL·kg−1·min−1) underwent the HD-tDCS or SHAM condition in a double-blind, counterbalanced, and randomized order. After 20 minutes of receiving either HD-tDCS on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (F3 and F4) or SHAM stimulation, participants completed a 10-minute constant-load trial (CLT1) at 90% of the first ventilatory threshold and a 2-minute CLT (CLT2) at peak power output. Thereafter, they performed a simulated 2-km time trial (TT). Maximal oxygen uptake, respiratory exchange ratio, heart rate, and rating of perceived exertion were recorded during CLT1 and CLT2, whereas performance parameters were recorded during the TT. Results: In 6 out of 11 cyclists, the total time to complete the TT was 3.0% faster in HD-tDCS compared to SHAM. Physiological and perceptual variables measured during CLT1 and CLT2 did not change between HD‐tDCS and SHAM. Conclusions: HD-tDCS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex seemed to improve cycling TT performance within the upper limit of the severe-intensity exercise domain, suggesting that an upregulation of the prefrontal cortex could be critical even in this exercise intensity domain. However, the limited dimension and the high interindividual variability require further studies to test these putative ergogenic effects.

This study investigated the effects induced by 8 weeks of two high-intensity interval training (HIIT) protocols, 10–20–30 and 30–30 concepts, characterized by significantly different training volume and intensity, on physiological parameters, running performance, body composition and psychophysiological stress of recreational divided into two groups: the 10–20–30 group performed two 10–20–30 sessions/wk and one continuous training (CT)/wk, whilst the 30–30 group performed two 30–30 sessions/wk and one CT session/wk. VO2max, 1 km time, maximal aerobic speed (MAS), and body composition were evaluated before and after intervention. Internal load was measured through rating of perceived exertion (RPE). Both groups significantly improved running performance (1 km time: p=0.04; MAS: p=0.000001), aerobic fitness (VO2max: p=0.000002) and body composition (lean mass (kg) p=0.0001; fat mass (%) p=0.00005). RPE resulted significantly lower in the 10–20–30 group than in 30–30 group (10–20–30: 13.36±0.28; 30–30:15.55±0.21; p=0.0002). Thus, the 10–20–30 group improved physiological parameters, performance and body composition, similar to 30–30 with significantly lower RPE values. These results suggest that in recreational runners the 10–20–30 training is effective in improving aerobic fitness and performance, with a lower subjective perception of effort, thus enhancing individual compliance and adherence to the prescribed training program.

This randomized crossover counterbalanced study investigated, in recreational runners, the acute effects of pre-exercise stretching on physiological and metabolic responses, endurance performance, and perception of effort. Eight male endurance runners (age 36 ± 11 years) performed three running-until-exhaustion tests, preceded by three warm-ups, including the following different stretching protocols: static (SS), dynamic (DS), and no-stretching (NS). During the SS and DS sessions, the warm-up consisted of 10 min of running plus 5 min of SS or DS, respectively, while during the NS session, the warm-up consisted of 15 min of running. Physiological and metabolic responses, and endurance running performance parameters, were evaluated. The perception of effort was derived from the rating of perceived exertion (RPE). Running economy significantly improved after SS (p < 0.05) and DS (p < 0.01), and RPE values were significantly lower in SS (p < 0.05) and DS (p < 0.01), compared to NS. No differences in physiological and metabolic responses among the sessions were found. This study showed that including SS and DS within the warm-up ameliorated running economy and decreased the perception of effort during a running-until-exhaustion test, highlighting the benefits of stretching on endurance performance. These results should encourage recreational runners to insert stretching during warm-up, to optimize the running energy costs, reducing the perception of effort and making the training sessions more enjoyable.

The aim of this study was to compare the physiological responses during 15 min of intermittent running consisting of 30 s of high-intensity running exercise at maximal aerobic velocity (MAV) interspersed with 30 s of passive recovery (30-30) performed outdoor versus on a motorized treadmill. Fifteen collegiate physically active males (age, 22 ± 1 years old; body mass, 66 ± 7 kg; stature, 176 ± 06 cm; weekly training volume, 5 ± 2 h·week), performed the Fitness Intermittent Test 45-15 to determine maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O) and MAV and then completed in random order 3 different training sessions consisting of a 30-s run/30-s rest on an outdoor athletic track (30-30 Track) at MAV; a 30-s run/30-s rest on a treadmill (30-30 Treadmill) at MAV; a 30-s run/30-s rest at MAV+15% (30-30 + 15% MAV Treadmill). Oxygen uptake (V̇O), time above 90%V̇O (t90%V̇O), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured during each training session. We observed a statistical significant underestimation of V̇O (53.1 ± 5.4 mL·kg·min vs 49.8 ± 6.7 mL·kg·min, -6.3%, P = 0.012), t90%V̇O (8.6% ± 11.5% vs 38.7% ± 32.5%, -77.8%, P = 0.008), RPE (11.4 ± 1.4 vs 16.5 ± 1.7, -31%, P < 0.0001) during the 30-30 Treadmill compared with the same training session performed on track. No statistical differences between 30-30 +15 % MAV Treadmill and 30-30 Track were observed. The present study demonstrates that a 15% increase in running velocity during a high-intensity intermittent treadmill training session is the optimal solution to reach the same physiological responses than an outdoor training session.