Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author: Olivier Girard x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Franck Brocherie, Grégoire P. Millet and Olivier Girard

Purpose:

To compare psychophysiological responses to 6 repeated-sprint sessions in normobaric hypoxia (RSH) and normoxia (RSN) in team-sport athletes during a 2-wk “live high–train low” training camp.

Methods:

While residing under normobaric hypoxia (≥14 h/d, FiO2 14.5–14.2%), 23 lowland elite field hockey players performed, in addition to their usual training, 6 sessions (4 × 5 × 5-s maximal sprints, 25-s passive recovery, 5 min rest) under either RSH (FiO2 ~14.5%) or RSN (FiO2 21%). Sprint 1 and 5 times, physiological strain (heart rate [HR], arterial oxyhemoglobin saturation [SpO2]), and perceptual responses (overall peripheral discomfort, difficulty breathing, and lower-limb discomfort) were monitored.

Results:

During the 1st session, HR increased across sets (P < .001) independently of the conditions, while SpO2 was globally lower (P < .001) for RSH (averaged value: 91.9% ± 1.2%) vs RSN (96.9% ± 0.6%). Thereafter, SpO2 and HR remained similar across sessions for each condition. While 1st-sprint time remained similar, last-sprint time and fatigue index significantly decreased across sets (P < .01) and sessions (P < .05) but not between conditions. Ratings of overall perceived discomfort, difficulty breathing, and lower-limb discomfort were higher (P < .05) in RSH vs RSN at the 1st session. During subsequent sessions, values for overall perceived discomfort (time [P < .001] and condition [P < .05] effects), difficulty breathing (time effect; P < .001), and lower-limb discomfort (condition [P < .001] and interaction [P < .05] effects) decreased to a larger extent in RSH vs RSN.

Conclusion:

Despite higher hypoxia-induced physiological and perceptual strain during the 1st session, perceptual responses improved thereafter in RSH so as not to differ from RSN. This indicates an effective acclimation and tolerance to this innovative training.

Restricted access

Olivier Girard, Franck Brocherie, Jean-Benoit Morin and Grégoire P. Millet

Purpose:

To determine the intrasession and intersession (ie, within- and between-days) reliability in treadmill sprinting-performance outcomes and associated running mechanics.

Methods:

After familiarization, 13 male recreational sportsmen (team- and racket-sport background) performed three 5-s sprints on an instrumented treadmill with 2 min recovery on 3 different days, 5–7 d apart. Intrasession (comparison of the 3 sprints of the first session) and intersession (comparison of the average of the 3 sprints across days) reliability of performance, kinetics, kinematics, and spring-mass variables were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficients of variation (CV%).

Results:

Intrasession reliability was high (ICC > .94 and CV < 8%). Intersession reliability was good for performance indices (.83 < ICC < .89 and CV < 10%, yet with larger variability for mean velocity than for distance covered or propulsive power) and kinetic parameters (ICC > .94 and CV < 5%, yet with larger variability for mean horizontal forces than for mean vertical forces) and ranged from good to high for all kinematic (.88 < ICC < .95 and CV ≤ 3.5%) and spring-mass variables (.86 < ICC < .99 and CV ≤ 6.5%). Compared with intrasession, minimal detectable differences were on average twice larger for intersession designs, except for sprint kinetics.

Conclusion:

Instrumented treadmill sprint offers a reliable method of assessing running mechanics during single sprints either within the same session or between days.

Restricted access

Olivier Girard, Franck Brocherie, Jean-Benoit Morin, Francis Degache and Grégoire P. Millet

We compared different approaches to analyze running mechanics alterations during repeated treadmill sprints. Thirteen active male athletes performed five 5-second sprints with 25 seconds of recovery on an instrumented treadmill. This approach allowed continuous measurement of running kinetics/kinematics and calculation of vertical and leg stiffness variables that were subsequently averaged over 3 distinct sections of the 5-second sprint (steps 2–5, 7–10, and 12–15) and for all steps (steps 2–15). Independently from the analyzed section, propulsive power and step frequency decreased with fatigue, while contact time and step length increased (P < .05). Except for step frequency, all mechanical variables varied (P < .05) across sprint sections. The only parameters that highly depend on running velocity (propulsive power and vertical stiffness) showed a significant interaction (P < .05) between the analyzed sections, with smaller magnitude of fatigue-induced change observed for steps 2–5. Considering all steps or only a few steps during early, middle, or late phases of 5-second sprints provides similar mechanical outcomes during repeated treadmill sprinting, although acceleration induces noticeable differences between the sections studied. Furthermore, quantifying mechanical alterations from the early acceleration phase may not be readily detectable, and is not recommended.