30-15 IFT

Video

The 30-15 Intermittent Fitness test ran with gas !

J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Mar;22(2):365-74. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181635b2e.

The 30-15 intermittent fitness test: accuracy for individualizing interval training of young intermittent sport players.

Source

Institute of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Strasbourg, France. martin.buchheit@u-picardie.fr

Abstract

The objective of this study was to gather evidence supporting the accuracy of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) for individualizing interval training of young intermittent sport players. In 59 young intermittent sport players (age, 16.2 +/- 2.3 years), we observed the relationships between the maximal running speed (MRS) reached at the end of the 30-15IFT (MRS30-15IFT) and physiological variables elicited by shuttle intermittent runs, including maximal oxygen uptake, explosive power of lower limbs, and the ability to repeat intense exercise bouts through cardiorespiratory recovery kinetics during exercise. To observe the capacity of the 30-15IFT to prescribe suitable running intensities for interval training sessions, we compared heart rates (HRs) reached during 3 series of intermittent runs, where distances were set according to the MRS30-15IFT and to MRS reached with 2 popular continuous field tests: the University of Montreal track test and the 20-m shuttle run test. The results show that the MRS30-15IFT is significantly correlated with all physiological variables elicited by shuttle intermittent runs (P < 0.05). Although mean HR were not different among the 3 series of intermittent runs, HR recorded during the runs based on MRS30-15IFT presented significantly less interindividual variation than when the continuously determined MRS were used as reference speeds. In conclusion, we can say that the 30-15IFT leads to an MRS that simultaneously takes into account various physiological qualities elicited when performing shuttle intermittent runs. For scheduling interval training sessions, the MRS30-15IFT appears to be an accurate reference speed for getting players with different physiological profiles to a similar level of cardiorespiratory demand and thus for standardizing training content.

J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Jan;23(1):93-100. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31818b9721.

Cardiorespiratory and cardiac autonomic responses to 30-15 intermittent fitness test in team sport players.

Source

Faculty of Sport Sciences, Laboratory of Exercise Physiology and Rehabilitation, University of Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France. martin.buchheit@u-picardie.fr

Abstract

The 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) is an attractive alternative to classic continuous incremental field tests for defining a reference velocity for interval training prescription in team sport athletes. The aim of the present study was to compare cardiorespiratory and autonomic responses to 30-15IFT with those observed during a standard continuous test (CT). In 20 team sport players (20.9 +/- 2.2 years), cardiopulmonary parameters were measured during exercise and for 10 minutes after both tests. Final running velocity, peak lactate ([La]peak), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were also measured. Parasympathetic function was assessed during the postexercise recovery phase via heart rate (HR) recovery time constant (HRR[tau]) and HR variability (HRV) vagal-related indices. At exhaustion, no difference was observed in peak oxygen uptake VO2peak), respiratory exchange ratio, HR, or RPE between 30-15IFT and CT. In contrast, 30-15IFT led to significantly higher minute ventilation, [La]peak, and final velocity than CT (p < 0.05 for all parameters). All maximal cardiorespiratory variables observed during both tests were moderately to well correlated (e.g., r = 0.76, p = 0.001 for [latin capital VO2peak). Regarding ventilatory thresholds (VThs), all cardiorespiratory measurements were similar and well correlated between the 2 tests. Parasympathetic function was lower after 30-15IFT than after CT, as indicated by significantly longer HHR[tau] (81.9 +/- 18.2 vs. 60.5 +/- 19.5 for 30-15IFT and CT, respectively, p < 0.001) and lower HRV vagal-related indices (i.e., the root mean square of successive R-R intervals differences [rMSSD]: 4.1 +/- 2.4 and 7.0 +/- 4.9 milliseconds, p < 0.05). In conclusion, the 30-15IFT is accurate for assessing VThs and VO2peak, but it alters postexercise parasympathetic function more than a continuous incremental protocol.

Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2013 Mar 8. [Epub ahead of print]

30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test vs. Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1: Relationship and Sensitivity to Training.

Source

Physiology Unit, Football Performance and Science Department, ASPIRE Academy for Sports Excellence, Doha, Qatar.

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to a) examine the relationship between performance of the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1 (Yo-YoIR1) and the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) and b) compare the sensitivity of both tests to training. Fourteen young soccer players performed both tests before and after an eight-week training intervention, which included six sessions/week: two resistance training sessions, two high-intensity interval training sessions after technical training (four sets of 3:30 min of generic running and small sided games (4v4) during the first and second four-week periods, respectively, [90-95% maximal HR], interspersed with 3 min at 60-70% maximal HR) and two tactical-only training sessions. There was a large correlation between 30-15IFT and Yo-YoIR1 (r = 0.75, 90% confidence limits, CL 0.57;0.86). While within-test % changes suggested a greater sensitivity to training for the Yo-YoIR1 (+35%, 90%CL 24;45) compared with the 30-15IFT (+7%; 4;10), these changes were similarly rated as ‘almost certain’ (with chances for greater/similar/lower values after training of 100/0/0 for both tests) and moderate, i.e., standardized difference, ES = +1.2 90%CL (0.9;1.5) for Yo-YoIR1 and ES = +1.1 (0.7;1.5) for 30-15IFT. The difference in the change between both tests was clearly trivial (0/100/0, ES = -0.1, 90%CL -0.1;-0.1). Both tests might evaluate slightly different physical capacities, but their sensitivity to training is almost certainly similar. These results also highlight the importance of using standardized differences instead of % changes in performance to assess the actual training effect of an intervention.

Advertisements