{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2024,7,18]],"date-time":"2024-07-18T17:54:22Z","timestamp":1721325262840},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Human Kinetics","issue":"7","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,8]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec sec-type=\"purpose\"><jats:title>Purpose:<\/jats:title><jats:p>To establish appropriate work intensity for interval training that would elicit maximal oxygen uptake (VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub>max) for well-trained swimmers.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec sec-type=\"methods\"><jats:title>Methods:<\/jats:title><jats:p>Twelve male competitive swimmers completed an incremental protocol to determine the minimum velocity at VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub>max (<jats:italic>\u03bd<\/jats:italic>VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub>max) and, in randomized order, 3 square-wave exercises from rest to 95%, 100%, and 105% of <jats:italic>\u03bd<\/jats:italic>VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub>max. Temporal aspects of the VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub> response were examined in these latter.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec sec-type=\"results\"><jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title><jats:p>Swimming at 105% of <jats:italic>\u03bd<\/jats:italic>VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub>max took less (<jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic> &lt; .04) absolute time to achieve 90%, 95%, and 100% of VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub>max intensities (35.0 \u00b1 7.7, 58.3 \u00b1 15.9, 58.3 \u00b1 19.3 s) compared with 95% (72.1 \u00b1 34.3, 106.7 \u00b1 43.9, 151.1 \u00b1 52.4 s) and 100% (55.8 \u00b1 24.5, 84.2 \u00b1 35.4, 95.6 \u00b1 29.8 s) of VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub>max. However, swimming at 95% of <jats:italic>\u03bd<\/jats:italic>VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub>max resulted in longer absolute time (<jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic> &lt; .001) at or above the desired intensities (90%: 268.3 \u00b1 72.5 s; 95%: 233.8 \u00b1 74.3 s; 100%: 173.6 \u00b1 78.2 s) and more relative time at or above 95% of VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub>max than 105% of <jats:italic>\u03bd<\/jats:italic>VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub>max (68.6% \u00b1 13.5% vs 55.3% \u00b1 11.5%, <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic> &lt; .03), and at or above 100% of VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub>max than 100% and 105% of <jats:italic>\u03bd<\/jats:italic>VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub>max (52.7% \u00b1 16.3% vs 28.2% \u00b1 10.5% and 34.0% \u00b1 11.3%, <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic> &lt; .001). At 60 s of effort, swimmers achieved 85.8% \u00b1 11.2%, 88.3% \u00b1 5.9%, and 94.7% \u00b1 5.5% of the VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub>max when swimming at 95%, 100%, and 105% of <jats:italic>\u03bd<\/jats:italic>VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub>max, respectively.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec sec-type=\"conclusions\"><jats:title>Conclusions:<\/jats:title><jats:p>When training to elicit VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub>max, using higher swimming intensities will promote a faster VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub> response but a shorter time spent above these intensities. However, lower intensities allow maintaining the desired response for a longer period of time. Moreover, using the 60-s time period seem to be a more adequate stimulus than shorter ones (~30-s), especially when performed at 105% of <jats:italic>\u03bd<\/jats:italic>VO<jats:sub>2<\/jats:sub>max intensity.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1123\/ijspp.2016-0475","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2016,12,5]],"date-time":"2016-12-05T20:37:42Z","timestamp":1480970262000},"page":"872-877","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":7,"title":["VO2 at Maximal and Supramaximal Intensities: Lessons to High-Intensity Interval Training in Swimming"],"prefix":"10.1123","volume":"12","author":[{"given":"Ana","family":"Sousa","sequence":"first","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Jo\u00e3o Paulo","family":"Vilas-Boas","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Ricardo J.","family":"Fernandes","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Pedro","family":"Figueiredo","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]}],"member":"100","container-title":["International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.humankinetics.com\/view\/journals\/ijspp\/12\/7\/article-p872.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.humankinetics.com\/downloadpdf\/journals\/ijspp\/12\/7\/article-p872.xml","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2022,5,19]],"date-time":"2022-05-19T18:32:22Z","timestamp":1652985142000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.humankinetics.com\/view\/journals\/ijspp\/12\/7\/article-p872.xml"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2017,8]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"7"},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1123\/ijspp.2016-0475","relation":{},"ISSN":["1555-0265","1555-0273"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1555-0265","type":"print"},{"value":"1555-0273","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2017,8]]}}}