Export Ready — 

Periodized Training in Mice: Comparisons between Constant and Undulating Load Models

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: de Carvalho, Carlos Dellavechia
Publication Date: 2020
Other Authors: Kalva-Filho, Carlos Augusto [UNESP], Milioni, Fabio [UNESP], Loures, João Paulo, Serrano, Vitor Siqueira, Silva, Adelino Sanchez Ramos, Papoti, Marcelo
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Download full: http://hdl.handle.net/11449/207930
Summary: Carvalho CD, Kalva-Filho CA, Milioni F, Loures JP, Serrano VS, Silva ASR, Papoti M. Periodized Training in Mice: Comparisons between Constant and Undulating Load Models. JEPonline 2020;23(4):15-24. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of undulating (UL) and constant load (CL) training models applied in Swiss mice. Twenty male mice were divided into 3 groups: (a) Control Group [CON; n=6]; (b) Undulating Group [ULG; n=7]; and (c) Constant Load Group [CLG; n=7]. Both training periods lasted 8 wks, 5 d∙wk-1, as prescribed in accordance with maximal speed reached during the incremental test (MaxS). The ULG trained through sessions classified as Endurance 1 (60 min at 40% MaxS), Endurance 2 (30 min at 60% MaxS), Endurance 3 (4 x 5 min at 100% MaxS), and Anaerobic (10 x 1 min at 120% MaxS). All sessions for CLG consisted of a 60-min duration at 60% of MaxS. Both training models induced positive adaptations until the 4th wk of training. However, these adaptations were not maintained during the last 4 wks, declining MaxS in relation to baseline. The CLG was able to accomplish only 69% of proposed training volume. However, the ULG was able to accomplish 94% of the proposed volume. Comparing the reasons for sessions failure, CLG presented higher number of dropouts related to unsatisfactory running (P-value = 0.008) and exhaustion (P-value = 0.001), while the ULG quit the sessions mainly due to injuries (P-value = 0.003). These results demonstrate that independently of the training model used, positive adaptations were induced up to the 4th-wk of training with high intensity sessions producing the larger amount of dropouts due primarily to injuries.
id UNSP_72e8e9e01c7a373f46ed0c870522ac17
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/207930
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Periodized Training in Mice: Comparisons between Constant and Undulating Load ModelsAerobic TrainingMaximal SpeedMiceRunningCarvalho CD, Kalva-Filho CA, Milioni F, Loures JP, Serrano VS, Silva ASR, Papoti M. Periodized Training in Mice: Comparisons between Constant and Undulating Load Models. JEPonline 2020;23(4):15-24. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of undulating (UL) and constant load (CL) training models applied in Swiss mice. Twenty male mice were divided into 3 groups: (a) Control Group [CON; n=6]; (b) Undulating Group [ULG; n=7]; and (c) Constant Load Group [CLG; n=7]. Both training periods lasted 8 wks, 5 d∙wk-1, as prescribed in accordance with maximal speed reached during the incremental test (MaxS). The ULG trained through sessions classified as Endurance 1 (60 min at 40% MaxS), Endurance 2 (30 min at 60% MaxS), Endurance 3 (4 x 5 min at 100% MaxS), and Anaerobic (10 x 1 min at 120% MaxS). All sessions for CLG consisted of a 60-min duration at 60% of MaxS. Both training models induced positive adaptations until the 4th wk of training. However, these adaptations were not maintained during the last 4 wks, declining MaxS in relation to baseline. The CLG was able to accomplish only 69% of proposed training volume. However, the ULG was able to accomplish 94% of the proposed volume. Comparing the reasons for sessions failure, CLG presented higher number of dropouts related to unsatisfactory running (P-value = 0.008) and exhaustion (P-value = 0.001), while the ULG quit the sessions mainly due to injuries (P-value = 0.003). These results demonstrate that independently of the training model used, positive adaptations were induced up to the 4th-wk of training with high intensity sessions producing the larger amount of dropouts due primarily to injuries.Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)School of Physical Education and Sport of Ribeirão Preto University of São PauloPhysical Education School of Sciences São Paulo State University (Unesp)Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation and Functional Performance Ribeirão Preto Medical School University of São Paulo (USP)Physical Education School of Sciences São Paulo State University (Unesp)FAPESP: FAPESP/n◦2014/19627-6Universidade de São Paulo (USP)Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)de Carvalho, Carlos DellavechiaKalva-Filho, Carlos Augusto [UNESP]Milioni, Fabio [UNESP]Loures, João PauloSerrano, Vitor SiqueiraSilva, Adelino Sanchez RamosPapoti, Marcelo2021-06-25T11:03:25Z2021-06-25T11:03:25Z2020-08-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article15-24Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, v. 23, n. 4, p. 15-24, 2020.1097-9751http://hdl.handle.net/11449/2079302-s2.0-85104089288Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengJournal of Exercise Physiology Onlineinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-08-14T17:23:43Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/207930Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestrepositoriounesp@unesp.bropendoar:29462024-08-14T17:23:43Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Periodized Training in Mice: Comparisons between Constant and Undulating Load Models
title Periodized Training in Mice: Comparisons between Constant and Undulating Load Models
spellingShingle Periodized Training in Mice: Comparisons between Constant and Undulating Load Models
de Carvalho, Carlos Dellavechia
Aerobic Training
Maximal Speed
Mice
Running
title_short Periodized Training in Mice: Comparisons between Constant and Undulating Load Models
title_full Periodized Training in Mice: Comparisons between Constant and Undulating Load Models
title_fullStr Periodized Training in Mice: Comparisons between Constant and Undulating Load Models
title_full_unstemmed Periodized Training in Mice: Comparisons between Constant and Undulating Load Models
title_sort Periodized Training in Mice: Comparisons between Constant and Undulating Load Models
author de Carvalho, Carlos Dellavechia
author_facet de Carvalho, Carlos Dellavechia
Kalva-Filho, Carlos Augusto [UNESP]
Milioni, Fabio [UNESP]
Loures, João Paulo
Serrano, Vitor Siqueira
Silva, Adelino Sanchez Ramos
Papoti, Marcelo
author_role author
author2 Kalva-Filho, Carlos Augusto [UNESP]
Milioni, Fabio [UNESP]
Loures, João Paulo
Serrano, Vitor Siqueira
Silva, Adelino Sanchez Ramos
Papoti, Marcelo
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv de Carvalho, Carlos Dellavechia
Kalva-Filho, Carlos Augusto [UNESP]
Milioni, Fabio [UNESP]
Loures, João Paulo
Serrano, Vitor Siqueira
Silva, Adelino Sanchez Ramos
Papoti, Marcelo
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Aerobic Training
Maximal Speed
Mice
Running
topic Aerobic Training
Maximal Speed
Mice
Running
description Carvalho CD, Kalva-Filho CA, Milioni F, Loures JP, Serrano VS, Silva ASR, Papoti M. Periodized Training in Mice: Comparisons between Constant and Undulating Load Models. JEPonline 2020;23(4):15-24. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of undulating (UL) and constant load (CL) training models applied in Swiss mice. Twenty male mice were divided into 3 groups: (a) Control Group [CON; n=6]; (b) Undulating Group [ULG; n=7]; and (c) Constant Load Group [CLG; n=7]. Both training periods lasted 8 wks, 5 d∙wk-1, as prescribed in accordance with maximal speed reached during the incremental test (MaxS). The ULG trained through sessions classified as Endurance 1 (60 min at 40% MaxS), Endurance 2 (30 min at 60% MaxS), Endurance 3 (4 x 5 min at 100% MaxS), and Anaerobic (10 x 1 min at 120% MaxS). All sessions for CLG consisted of a 60-min duration at 60% of MaxS. Both training models induced positive adaptations until the 4th wk of training. However, these adaptations were not maintained during the last 4 wks, declining MaxS in relation to baseline. The CLG was able to accomplish only 69% of proposed training volume. However, the ULG was able to accomplish 94% of the proposed volume. Comparing the reasons for sessions failure, CLG presented higher number of dropouts related to unsatisfactory running (P-value = 0.008) and exhaustion (P-value = 0.001), while the ULG quit the sessions mainly due to injuries (P-value = 0.003). These results demonstrate that independently of the training model used, positive adaptations were induced up to the 4th-wk of training with high intensity sessions producing the larger amount of dropouts due primarily to injuries.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-08-01
2021-06-25T11:03:25Z
2021-06-25T11:03:25Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, v. 23, n. 4, p. 15-24, 2020.
1097-9751
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/207930
2-s2.0-85104089288
identifier_str_mv Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, v. 23, n. 4, p. 15-24, 2020.
1097-9751
2-s2.0-85104089288
url http://hdl.handle.net/11449/207930
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Exercise Physiology Online
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 15-24
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv repositoriounesp@unesp.br
_version_ 1834484516936220672