The Impact of Running-Based and Drop Jumping Interval Interventions on Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Anaerobic Power of Collegiate Volleyball Players: A Comparative Analysis of Inter-Individual Variability in the Adaptive Responses

• Published in: Journal of sports science & medicine 2024-12, Vol.23 (4), p.863-871
• Main Authors: Zhao, Xuefeng, Lu, Minying
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adaptation, Physiological; Anaerobic Threshold - physiology; Athletic Performance - physiology; Cardiac Output - physiology; Cardiorespiratory Fitness - physiology; Exercise Test; Exercise tests; Heart; High-Intensity Interval Training - methods; Humans; Male; Oxygen Consumption - physiology; Physical fitness; Plyometric Exercise; Running; Running - physiology; Stroke Volume - physiology; Training; Volleyball; Volleyball - physiology; Volleyball players; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1303-2968; 1303-2968
• DOI: 10.52082/jssm.2024.863

This study compared inter-individual variability in the adaptive responses of cardiorespiratory fitness, anaerobic power, and motor abilities of male volleyball players to high-intensity interval training (HIIT) prescribed as repetitive drop jumps (interval jumping) and running-based intervals (interval running). Twenty-four collegiate volleyball players were equally randomized to two training groups executing 11 minutes of interval running or interval jumping during which they ran or repeated drop-jumps for 15 seconds, alternating with 15 seconds of passive recovery. Before and after the 6-week training period, aerobic fitness, cardiac function, and anaerobic power were evaluated using a graded exercise test, impedance cardiography, and a lower-body Wingate test, respectively. Additionally, linear speed, agility, and jumping tests determined motor abilities. Both interventions significantly enhanced maximum oxygen uptake (V̇O ), velocity associated with V̇O , first and second ventilatory thresholds (VT & VT ), maximal cardiac output (Q̇ ), stroke volume (SV ), peak and average power output, vertical jump, change of direction, and linear sprint speed. Interval jumping group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in squat jump ( = 0.001; 95% CI: 2.51-5.42) and countermovement jump ( = 0.001; 95% CI: 2.11-4.61) compared to interval running group. Conversely, interval running group elicited a greater enhancement in sprint speed ( = 0.002; 95% CI: 2.53-5.71) than interval jumping group. Examining the individual residual in the adaptive responses revealed that interval running induced more homogenized adaptations across individuals in VT ( = 0.04; 95% CI: 0.03-1.33), Q̇ ( = 0.03; 95% CI: 0.04-1.64), SV ( = 0.04; 95% CI: 0.02-1.75), and maximal sprint speed ( = 0.01; 95% CI: 0.72-1.95) in contrast to interval jumping. However, the uniformity of adaptations in countermovement jump in response to interval jumping surpassed that of interval running ( = 0.02; 95% CI: 0.08-1.32). Although both training modalities effectively improved the mentioned variables concurrently, tailoring the HIIT intervention to the reference intensity and training modality specific for each quality may enhance measured quality.