Supramaximal Interval Running Prescription in ARF Players: A Comparison Between Maximal Aerobic Speed, Anaerobic Speed Reserve, and the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness [Article Review]

Introduction

The article titled "Supramaximal Interval Running Prescription in Australian Rules Football Players: A Comparison Between Maximal Aerobic Speed, Anaerobic Speed Reserve, and the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test" by Jay Collison, Thomas Debenedictis, Joel T. Fuller, Ryan Gerschwitz, Tayla Ling, Lochlan Gotch, Brenden Bishop, Lauren Sibley, Jed Russell, Amy Hobbs, and Clint R. Bellenger, investigates the effectiveness of different methods for prescribing supramaximal interval running in junior Australian Rules Football (AF) players. The study, published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, aims to determine which method—maximal aerobic speed (MAS), anaerobic speed reserve (ASR), or the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT)—most effectively reduces variability in running performance, thereby ensuring consistent physiological demands and adaptation across athletes

Background and Rationale

Australian Rules Football is a demanding sport that requires a blend of aerobic and anaerobic fitness, strength, power, speed, and agility. Preseason training is typically structured to develop these qualities, progressing from longer aerobic intervals to shorter, high-intensity supramaximal efforts. Accurate prescription of these supramaximal intervals is crucial for targeting specific physiological and neuromuscular adaptations. Traditionally, MAS has been used to set interval intensities, but anecdotal evidence suggests this may lead to inconsistent physiological responses among athletes, particularly for supramaximal efforts that rely heavily on anaerobic metabolism.

Study Design and Methods

The study involved 17 male junior AF players who underwent a series of assessments to determine their MAS (via a 2,000-m time trial), maximal sprint speed (MSS, for ASR calculation), and 30-15IFT terminal speed. Each athlete then performed supramaximal interval running trials (15 seconds on, 15 seconds off, until exhaustion) at intensities prescribed by 120% MAS, 20% ASR, and 95% 30-15IFT, in randomized order. The primary outcome was the variability in time to exhaustion (TTE) for each prescription method, analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA.

Key Findings

• No Significant Difference in Mean TTE: The average time to exhaustion did not differ significantly between the three prescription methods (p = 0.58), indicating that, on average, athletes could sustain similar durations regardless of the method used.

• Reduced Variability with ASR: Variability in TTE was reduced by 29% when intervals were prescribed using ASR compared to MAS. Although the confidence intervals indicated some uncertainty (p = 0.09), this reduction exceeded the typical error range for TTE efforts (9–15%) and is considered practically meaningful.

• Trivial Differences with 30-15IFT: The 30-15IFT method showed only trivial differences in TTE variability compared to MAS, suggesting it does not offer a substantial advantage in this context.

• Physiological Implications: By reducing variability in performance, ASR-based prescription may help ensure that all athletes experience similar physiological demands during training, potentially leading to more uniform adaptations across a team.

Practical Considerations

The study highlights that supramaximal interval running, when prescribed by ASR, accounts for both aerobic and anaerobic capacities, making it a more individualized and potentially effective approach for team sports like AF. The 30-15IFT, while comprehensive in assessing multiple physical qualities, did not significantly outperform MAS in reducing performance variability in this study.

Conclusion and Practical Recommendations

This research provides valuable insights for coaches and sport scientists seeking to optimize conditioning programs in team sports. The key takeaway is that prescribing supramaximal interval running based on anaerobic speed reserve (ASR) can meaningfully reduce variability in athletes' performance, promoting more consistent training stimuli and potentially enhancing team-wide physiological adaptation. While MAS remains a common and accessible method, its limitations for supramaximal efforts are evident. The 30-15IFT, despite its popularity, did not demonstrate clear superiority in this context.

Practical Recommendations:

• Adopt ASR-Based Prescriptions: Coaches should consider incorporating ASR calculations into their conditioning protocols for supramaximal intervals, as this method better individualizes intensity and reduces inter-athlete variability1.

• Continue Monitoring Individual Responses: Even with improved prescription methods, regular monitoring of athlete responses is essential to ensure training loads remain appropriate and effective.

• Use 30-15IFT for Broader Assessment: While not superior for interval prescription, the 30-15IFT remains valuable for assessing overall fitness and change-of-direction ability in team sport athletes.

By refining interval prescription methods, practitioners can enhance the effectiveness of preseason conditioning and better prepare athletes for the demands of competition

Article PDF

supramaximal_interval_running_prescription_in.19.pdf

Download PDF • 356KB