EFFECTS OF SPRINT INTERVAL TRAINING AND BODY
WEIGHT REDUCTION ON POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO
IN EXPERIENCED CYCLISTS
WILLIAM R. LUNN, JOAN A. FINN, AND ROBERT S. AXTELL
Exercise Science Department, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, Connecticut 06515
ABSTRACT
Lunn, WR, Finn, JA, and Axtell, RS. Effects of sprint interval
training and body weight reduction on power to weight ratio in
experienced cyclists. J Strength Cond Res 23(4): 1217–1224,
2009—The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of
supramaximal sprint interval training (SIT), body weight reduc-
tion, and a combination of both treatments on peak and average
anaerobic power to weight ratio (PPOan:Wt, APOan:Wt) by
manipulating peak and average anaerobic power output
(PPOan, APOan) and body weight (BW) in experienced cyclists.
Participants (N = 34, age = 38.0 6 7.1 years) were assigned
to 4 groups for a 10-week study. One group performed twice-
weekly SIT sessions on a cycle ergometer while maintaining
body weight (SIT). A second group did not perform SIT but
intentionally reduced body weight (WR). A third group simu-
ltaneously performed SIT sessions and reduced body weight
(SIT+WR). A control group cycled in their normal routine and
maintained body weight (CON). The 30-second Wingate Test
assessed pretest and posttest POan:Wt scores. There was
a significant mean increase (p , 0.05) from pretest to posttest
in PPOan:Wt and APOan:Wt (W
kg21) scores in both SIT
(10.82 6 1.71 to 11.92 6 1.77 and 8.05 6 0.64 to 8.77 6
0.64, respectively) and WR (10.33 6 2.91 to 11.29 6 2.80 and
7.04 6 1.45 to 7.62 6 1.24, respectively). PPOan and APOan
(W) increased significantly only in SIT (753.7 6 121.0 to
834.3 6 150.1 and 561.3 6 62.5 to 612.7 6 69.0, respec-
tively). Body weight (kg) decreased significantly in WR and
SIT + WR (80.3 6 13.7 to 75.3 6 11.9 and 78.9 6 10.8 to
73.4 6 10.8, respectively). The results demonstrate that cyclists
can use SIT sessions and body weight reduction as singular
training interventions to effect significant increases in anaerobic
power to weight ratio, which has been correlated to enhanced
The results of the present study do not constitute endorsement of the
product by the authors or the NSCA.
Address correspondence to William R. Lunn, wlunn25@comcast.net.
23(4)/1217–1224
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2009 National Strength and Conditioning Association
aerobic cycling performance. However, the treatments were not
effective as combined interventions, as there was no significant
change in either PPOan:Wt or APOan:Wt in SIT + WR.
KEY WORDS Wingate Test
INTRODUCTION
A
naerobic and aerobic power output relative to
body weight (power to weight ratio; W
kg21) has
been a popular, anecdotal measure of ability
among competitive cyclists. Success in sustained,
endurance cycling efforts has been predicted most commonly
using aerobic power to weight ratio (15–17,20,21,28,39), but
the anaerobic ratio has also correlated positively to enhanced
aerobic performance (1,11,13). Theoretical maximization of
the power to weight ratio can be accomplished by singularly
employing (a) training technique to increase aerobic or
anaerobic power output, (b) body weight reduction, or (c)
a combination of both interventions.
High-intensity interval training involves repeated bouts of
submaximal, maximal, and supramaximal efforts, and so the
physiological indexes affected by this type of training can
be categorized as aerobic (longer bouts; submaximal and
maximal efforts) and anaerobic (short ‘‘sprint’’ bouts; supra-
maximal effort). When the submaximal and maximal efforts
are applied, high-intensity interval training has improved
aerobic power output (25,26,29,43) and aerobic time trial
performance (7,26,27,29,43) in cyclists. Supramaximal sprint
interval training, often referred to as SIT, has enhanced both
aerobic (36) and anaerobic (9,10,13) power output. Addi-
tionally, anthropometry appears to have a significant con-
tribution to enhanced performance, as cyclists with less body
weight (BW) experienced decreased race times (15,20,28)
and increased aerobic power to weight ratio (30,33). Because
aerobic adaptations and performance similar to those achieved
with traditional high-volume, low-intensity training have been
observed using SIT that effects increased anaerobic power
(13), a new training dogma that offers significant training
volume savings has emerged. Therefore, characterizing the
SIT form of high-intensity interval training as ‘‘anaerobic’’ may
be irresponsible, given the apparent increase in reliance on
aerobic bioenergetics as a SIT workout progresses (34).
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 4 | JULY 2009 | 1217
Effects of SIT and BW Reduction on Power to Weight Ratio
It logically follows that not only sprint-oriented compet-
itive cyclists but endurance competitors also would desire
a large anaerobic power to weight ratio. Theoretically, they
could singularly employ SIT or reduction of BW, or combine
the interventions to effect the improvement. However,
engaging in SIT while reducing BW may be difficult for
cyclists; the ability to increase anaerobic power output can be
compromised if lean tissue is lost with weight (32). A less
physiologically stressful approach may be (a) reducing BW
through dietary intervention while power output is main-
tained or reduced slightly or (b) enhancing power output
through training practices while maintaining BW.
To our knowledge, there have been no published studies
investigating the individual and combined effects of SIT and
anthropometry on anaerobic power to weight ratio. The
research results give the competitive cyclist statistical evidence
for guidance in training techniques for performance enhance-
ment. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the
effect of each of SIT and BW reduction and a combination of
both treatments on peak and average anaerobic power to body
weight ratio (PPOan:BW, APOan:BW, in W
kg21) in experi-
enced cyclists.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
All training and testing in the study was performed in the
Human Performance Laboratory at Southern Connecticut
State University. The study duration was 10 weeks and was
mutually exclusive among and scheduled individually for each
participant, spanning the months of July through March. The
study was started and completed with a pretest and posttest,
respectively, each of which included determination of body
composition (percent body fat, fat mass, and fat-free mass), body
weight (BW), and a 30-second Wingate Test that determined
peak and average anaerobic power output (PPOan, APOan) and
anaerobic power to weight ratio (PPOan:BW, APOan:BW).
After the pretest, the participants were placed into one of the
TABLE 1. Physical measurement data of participants.*†
SIT (n = 8) WR (n = 8)
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Age, y 37 6 7 — 43 6 5 — 37 6 7
Height, m 1.77 6 0.1 — 1.77 6 0.1 — 1.79 6 0.1
Body 69.8 6 5.3 69.9 6 5.4 80.3 6 13.7 75.3 6 11.9 78.9 6 10.8 73.4 6 10.8 67.3 6 8.1 67.5 6 8.5
weight, kg
BMI, kg
m22 22.3 6 0.8 22.3 6 0.9 25.4 6 2.9 23.8 6 2.5 24.5 6 1.9 22.7 6 1.7 22.3 6 2.1 22.4 6 2.2
*BMI = body mass index.
†Data are means 6SD.
the TM
1218 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
following study groups to facilitate investigation of singular
and combined effects of sprint training and body weight
reduction on POan:BW: (a) train for power with SIT while
maintaining body weight (SIT), (b) reduce body weight
while maintaining power output (WR), (c) simultaneously
train for power with SIT while reducing body weight
(SIT+WR), and (d) a control group that maintained power
output while maintaining body weight (CON). Eligibility for
the body weight reduction groups depended on the following
minimum percent body fat values: 10% for males and 15%
for females, based on observations of diminishing sports
performance with low body fat values (42). Therefore,
participants matched for weight reduction based on percent
body fat were randomly placed into any of the 4 groups. If
ineligible for weight reduction, participants were randomly
placed into SIT or CON. Because of the repeated measures
study design, groups were not intentionally matched for
gender or any power output variable. Participants were
excluded from the study if unable to reach a pedal cadence of
80 rpm at peak power output during the Wingate pretest.
Subjects
Healthy, experienced, nonelite, competitive male and female
cyclists (body mass index = 23.5 6 2.4 kg
m22, n = 34, age =
38.0 6 7.1 years) were recruited from the local bicycle racing
community. Participants included 29 men and 5 women:
20 road cyclists, 12 triathletes/duathletes, and 2 mountain
cyclists. All participants met the eligibility criteria of average
riding time at least 5 h
wk21 ‘‘in season’’ (racing) and 2–3
h
wk21 ‘‘off season’’ (base training); all were competitive
cyclists and during the calendar year normally followed a
racing period (7–9 months), followed by a rest and base
training period (3–5 months). For physical measurement data,
see Table 1. All participants were informed of potential
experimental risks involved and gave voluntary informed
consent for the investigation, which was approved by the Insti-
tutional Review Board for use of human subjects at Southern
Connecticut State University in New Haven, Connecticut.
SIT + WR (n = 7) CON (n = 11)
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
— 36 6 8 —
— 1.74 6 0.1 —

Procedures
Body Composition Protocol. At the pretest and posttest, percent
body fat was determined on all participants using skinfold
determination. Participants were first weighed on a Detecto
439 physician scale calibrated to 60.1 kg (Cardinal Scale
Manufacturing Co., Webb City, MO) for body weight (BW)
in air. Skinfold determination involved the Jackson-Pollock
3-site method (chest, abdomen, and anterior thigh for men;
triceps, suprailiac, and anterior thigh for women), using Lange
calipers (Beta Technology Inc., Cambridge, MA) calibrated
to 61 mm. A total of 3 measurements were made at each site,
median values of each site were recorded, and the sum of the
median values was used to determine body density with the
formulas for male (23) and female (24) participants. Percent
body fat was calculated from body density using the formula
by Brozek et al. (6). Participants were measured with dry skin
and were instructed not to have exercised the day before
measurement and to be well hydrated the day of measure-
ment. Fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) were deter-
mined from percent body fat.
Weight Reduction Protocol. WR and SIT+WR participants were
asked before week 1 of the study to compile a 7-day food log
detailing type and specific amount of food eaten through the
entire day. These participants also provided a 7-day activity
log detailing daily exercise. The food and exercise logs and
participants’ physical data were submitted to a registered
dietitian, who calculated total daily calorie needs using the
basal metabolic rate (BMR) formula and the Harris-Benedict
equation for very active individuals:
BMRmen ¼ 66 þ ð13:7 3 BW½kgÞ þ ð5 3 height½cmÞ
 ð6:8 3 age½yearÞ
BMRwomen ¼ 655 þ ð9:6 3 BW½kgÞ
þ ð1:8 3 height½cmÞ  ð4:7 3 age½yearÞ
Harris  Benedict veryactive ðtotaldailycaloriesÞ
¼ BMR 3 1:725
The dietitian constructed a daily meal plan similar to the
meals described in the food log and subtracted 250–500 daily
calories from the Harris-Benedict result to elicit a rate of
weekly BW loss of 0.25–0.5 kg for each participant. Partici-
pants were encouraged to maintain their weekly exercise/
training/racing routine from the activity log throughout the
10-week study. WR and SIT + WR participants reported to
the laboratory weekly during the study to monitor BW and
rate of BW loss or were allowed to monitor weekly BW
remotely using their home or fitness club weight scale for
convenience if time constraints prevented weekly laboratory
visits. Only the pretest and posttest BW measurements were
required to be made in the laboratory.
Wingate Test Protocol. Each participant was fitted comfortably
onto a Monark Peak Bike Ergomedic 894Ea cycle ergometer
with friction-loaded flywheel and factory-calibrated weight
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
set (Monark Exercise AB, Vansbro, Sweden). The technician
adjusted seat height, seat fore/aft position, and handlebar
height to the participant’s comfort. Fit adjustments were
made so that the participant’s knee angle with ergometer
crank arm at 180° was approximately 30° flexion with
a goniometer. The greater trochanter, lateral epicondyle,
fibular head, and lateral malleolus were used as anatomical
landmarks for the measurement. All fit measurements were
recorded to ensure reproducibility throughout the study. A
Wingate Test protocol similar to that described by Inbar et al.
(22) was used. The flywheel force was kept constant at 0.095
kg
(kg BW)21. The warm-up protocol involved 5 minutes of
low-workload (25–100 W) cycling above 60 rpm, inter-
spersed with four to five 5-second supramaximal sprints
at the prescribed force (which were considered familiariza-
tion to the Wingate Test itself ), separated by 30–45 seconds
of low-workload cycling. The participant then cycled at
a comfortable, self-selected cadence above 60 rpm at minimal
power (25–100 W) for 5 minutes. After the 5 minutes, the
technician gradually and quickly added the prescribed force
onto the weight pan as the participant increased pedaling
cadence to near maximum. Once the complete weight was
added to the pan, the technician gave a verbal command for
the participant to begin pedaling as fast as possible. The
elapsed time from beginning to end of the acceleration period
was no more than 5 seconds.
Each participant cycled against prescribed force for 30
seconds at highest possible pedal cadence while remaining
seated. Verbal encouragement was provided to encourage the
participant to work at supramaximal effort throughout the
entire test. Computer software (Monark Anaerobic Test
Software version 2.2) calculated PPOan, APOan, PPOan:BW,
and APOan:BW throughout the 30-second test. To cool
down, the participant cycled at low to moderate aerobic
workload (25–100 W) for 2–3 minutes.
Sprint Interval Training Protocol. For 10 weeks, SIT and SIT +
WR participants completed twice-weekly SIT sessions on the
TABLE 2. Schedule of sprint progression for twice-
weekly SIT sessions.
Sprints per Recovery between
Week session sprints, min
1 2 3
2 4 3
3 6 3
4,5 7 3
6,7 8 3
8,9 9 3
10 10 3
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 4 | JULY 2009 | 1219
Effects of SIT and BW Reduction on Power to Weight Ratio

cycle ergometer to enhance

PPOan and APOan. Training
sessions consisted of multiple,
20-second supramaximal
sprints separated by 3 minutes
of active recovery cycling
at low-workload power output
(25 W). Each participant re-
mained seated during the
sprints. Verbal encouragement
was offered during every sprint.
The warm-up protocol, sprint
efforts, and ergometer fit meas-
urements were similar to those
used in the Wingate Test. The
number of sprints increased
weekly as shown in Table 2.
Training sessions were con-
ducted on nonconsecutive days
with at least 48 hour between
sessions to allow the sufficient
recovery of participant. Each
participant’s sessions were
Figure 1. Results of mean PPOan:BW (W
kg21) comparing pretest and posttest for each group. Error bars are scheduled for the same time of
6SD. *Significant difference from pretest (p , 0.05).
day throughout the 10 weeks.
SIT and SIT + WR participants
were instructed not to exercise
before the training session on
each training day. All group
participants were instructed to
maintain their weekly exercise/
training routine from the activ-
ity log throughout the 10-week
study but not to engage in
supramaximal sprint efforts out-
side the study training sessions.
None of the study participants
normally engaged in supramax-
imal sprint training in their
normal training routine.

Statistical Analyses
Test-retest reliability of the
Wingate Test was assessed us-
ing the split-half technique to
determine the reliability coeffi-
cient with the Spearman-
Brown prophecy formula for
each of PPOan:BW and
APOan:BW. A 2-way analysis
of variance with repeated meas-
ures was used to determine if
Figure 2. Results of mean APOan:BW (W
kg21) comparing pretest and posttest for each group. Error bars are differences existed from pretest
6SD. *Significant difference from pretest (p , 0.05). and posttest conditions be-
tween the 4 treatment groups
the TM

1220 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

for each of PPOan:BW, APOan:BW, PPOan, APOan, BW,

percent body fat, FFM, and FM. Factors were trial (pretest,

753.7 6 121.0 834.3 6 150.1† 794.6 6 284.2 857.0 6 278.9 922.1 6 286.7 931.5 6 265.2 667.4 6 190.8 650.5 6 206.0

561.3 6 62.5 612.7 6 69.0† 544.5 6 162.6 527.0 6 170.8 639.6 6 144.9 643.4 6 142.7 493.8 6 135.2 479.9 6 136.8
posttest) and physical intervention (sprint interval training,

APOan value obtained over 30-second Wingate test divided by body weight. FM is body fat mass determined by multiplying Jackson-Pollock 3-site skinfold body fat percent by total
*Data are means 6 SD. PPOan:Wt is highest running average PPOan value over 1 second obtained over 30-second Wingate Test divided by body weight. APOan :Wt is average
9.6 6 2.2

7.1 6 1.4
67.5 6 8.5
12.3 6 5.3
8.3 6 3.6
59.2 6 8.6
weight reduction). In the event of a significant F ratio, means
Posttest were compared using Tukey’s studentized range post hoc
CON (n = 11)

test. Alpha level was set at 0.05.

RESULTS
The Spearman-Brown prophecy reliabilities were high for
9.8 6 1.9

7.3 6 1.3
73.4 6 10.8† 67.3 6 8.1
12.0 6 5.1
8.0 6 3.4
59.3 6 8.4
Pretest

each of PPOan:BWand APOan:BW on the Wingate Test (R1 =

0.97 and R1 = 0.98, respectively). There was a significant
increase (p , 0.05) in PPOan:BW (Figure 1) and APOan:BW
(Figure 2) in the SIT and WR groups from pretest to posttest.
PPOan and APOan significantly increased to effect the change
11.4 6 2.5†
8.4 6 2.0†
12.5 6 2.0

8.7 6 0.8

65.1 6 9.9

in the SITgroup (Table 3). There was no significant change in

Posttest

absolute power data in the WR group; however, the signifi-

SIT+WR (n = 7)

cant decrease in body weight caused the increase in PPOan:BW

and APOan:BW. The WR group also experienced a significant
decrease in percent body fat and FM (Table 3). No significant
75.3 6 11.9† 78.9 6 10.8

change was found in PPOan:BW and APOan:BW (Figures 1

11.5 6 2.6

8.1 6 1.3

15.5 6 2.4
12.3 6 2.9
66.5 6 8.6
Pretest

and 2) in the SIT+WR group despite a significant decrease in

each of BW, percent body fat, and FM (Table 3). None of the
dependent variables changed significantly in the CON group
from pretest to posttest (Table 3).
11.3 6 2.8†

7.6 6 1.2†

14.9 6 4.5†
11.3 6 4.4†

DISCUSSION
64.0 6 9.7
Posttest

body weight. FFM is fat-free mass determined by subtracting fat mass from total body weight.

The major findings of this study were that there was a sig-
nificant increase in PPOan:BWand APOan:BW from pretest to
WR (n = 8)

posttest in both the SIT and WR groups. Supporting data

reveal that the SIT group experienced a significant increase in
80.3 6 13.7

65.5 6 11.0

PPOan and APOan, whereas the WR group had a significant

10.3 6 2.9

7.0 6 1.4

18.4 6 5.5
14.8 6 5.6
Pretest

loss of body weight. Therefore, the SIT and weight reduction

interventions acted to singularly effect enhancements in
PPOan:BW and APOan:BW in the SIT and WR groups,
respectively. Although the importance of power to weight
TABLE 3. Power and anthropometric data of participants.*

ratio to cycling has been noted in the literature, this is the first
11.9 6 1.8†

8.8 6 0.6†

study to specifically investigate the effects of manipulating

69.9 6 5.4
9.9 6 2.7
6.9 6 1.8
63.0 6 5.5
Posttest

the ratio’s operands.

The capacity for improvement for experienced endurance
†Significant difference from pretest (p , 0.05).
SIT (n = 8)

athletes is small (18). While not elite cyclists, all participants

in the present study were experienced, and most were
seasoned competitors who train and race vigorously during
PPOan:Wt, W
kg21 10.8 6 1.7

8.1 6 0.6
69.8 6 5.3
10.1 6 2.8
7.1 6 2.1
62.7 6 4.9

most months. Large improvement in PPOan:BW and

Pretest

APOan:BW scores, therefore, may seem unexpected. How-

ever, none of the participants in the present study had ever
engaged in supramaximal sprint interval training. The
literature indicates that such training can still yield small
APOan:Wt, W
kg21

yet important improvement in power output in highly

Body weight, kg

trained cyclists (10), so it is not surprising that the SIT group

Body fat, %

significantly improved anaerobic power output. What is

APOan, W
PPOan, W

interesting is that the SIT group also experienced a slight but

FFM, kg
FM, kg

nonsignificant increase and decrease in FFM and FM,

respectively. Although there is no statistical significance to
show empirical evidence, sprint interval training serves to
increase FFM. Thomas et al. (40) correlated anaerobic leg

VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 4 | JULY 2009 | 1221

Effects of SIT and BW Reduction on Power to Weight Ratio
press power to FFM, and McCartney (32) demonstrated
a positive relationship between peak anaerobic power and
thigh muscle volume. However, both studies were performed
on healthy but noncyclist subjects, and because the effects of
SIT apparently cause only a modest hypertrophy of types 1
and 2 skeletal muscle fibers (a much lesser effect than
resistance training) after several months of SIT (36), it is
impossible to say if the relationship of sprint interval training
to increased FFM is causal.
The enhancement of PPOan:BW and APOan:BW in the
WR group was due to significant decrease in body weight
(there was a slight but nonsignificant increase in each of
PPOan and APOan). It should be noted that of the weight lost,
the slight loss of FFM was nonsignificant, whereas body fat
percent and FM reduced significantly. The WR group did not
engage in sprint interval training, yet continued their normal
cycling routine during the 10-week intervention. That FM
comprised the contribution to the weight loss is paramount
to the idea that activities stimulating peak anaerobic power
output are not prophylactic to FFM loss during calorie
restriction, when considering the result of the SIT + WR
group. The possibility that SIT combined with weight
reduction would result in significantly heightened POan:BW
was not realized. Although the SIT + WR group experienced
a significant body weight loss similar to WR, there was
a nonsignificant increase in each of APOan and PPOan in
SIT + WR. This result demonstrates that weight reduction
alone cannot sufficiently enhance physiological power
measures relative to body weight while the athlete is
engaging in supramaximal sprint training. Other investigators
have found muscular performance decrements (41) in
subjects placed on a hypocaloric diet while concurrently
participating in strength training. The Walberg study (41)
determined that normal dietary protein intake in a calorie-
deficient diet did not sufficiently provide body protein
retention during weight loss. It is then easy to see the
difficulty in producing significant increases in anaerobic
physiological measures, as the importance of FFM (40) and
muscle volume (32) to anaerobic power output has been
demonstrated.
However, there are data contradictory to the idea that peak
power cannot be enhanced with concomitant body weight
reduction. The results from the SIT + WR group from the
present study refute the findings by Fogelholm et al. (12), who
found a significant increase in APOan:BW from a 1-minute
Wingate test in wrestlers who reduced body weight.
Although the athletes in the study of Fogelholm et al. (12)
lost their weight over a brief time period relative to the
present study, the weight loss procedure (calorie deficit) and
total body weight lost (6%) were similar to those in the
present study. Indeed, a 6% loss in body weight does not
appear to have a detrimental effect on physiological indexes
in anaerobic cycling; in fact, with respect to measures relative
to body weight, weight loss seems to enhance those indexes.
It is noteworthy that the athletes in the present study still
the TM
1222 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
maintained percent body fat values well above the minimum
threshold recommended by sports medicine professionals
(5–7% for males, 10–12% for females) for sport performance
maintenance (42). Because body composition data were not
provided in the study of Fogelholm et al. (12), it is curious
whether the wrestlers used in the intervention maintained
the threshold given their reputation to have very low percent
body fat.
The observed increases in APOan:BW and PPOan:BW in
the WR group are consistent with published data demon-
strating a negative correlation between body weight and
relative physiological measures, namely peak and average
aerobic power to weight ratio (15,28,30,33). However, none
of these studies assessed anaerobic power output, nor were
any weight reduction interventions applied–the correlations
were made to either independent groups subjects of different
body weight within the study (28,30,33) or to the same group
using different measures of performance (15). Addressing the
issue of assessing aerobic vs. anaerobic power output in
endurance cyclists, the authors of the present study feel
confident using the anaerobic index, given the recent
observations that multi-day, multiple-week supramaximal
sprint interval training, similar to that employed in the
present study, resulted in aerobic adaptations similar to
traditional endurance-type training (8,13). As for the weight
loss intervention, it is difficult to compare results with other
studies that did not include body weight reduction; however,
2 studies that assessed body composition demonstrated
higher power to weight ratio with significantly less body
weight and percent body fat in mountain bikers vs. road
cyclists (28) and in climbers vs. time trialists (30). Those
anthropometry and power output results compare favorably
with those in the WR group in the current study.
Finally, the findings by Gibala et al. (13) that supplant
traditional long-duration training bouts with SIT to effect
similar aerobic improvements deserve attention because the
goal of the present study was to investigate effects of SIT on
a physiological measure traditionally endeared by endurance
athletes. Translation of brief, supramaximal 20-second bouts
in a sprint interval training session, as was performed in the
present study, to endurance enhancement may seem
counterintuitive; 80% of available energy is provided by
the immediate and fast glycolytic bioenergetic systems
during a single supramaximal effort (34). However, the
efforts may become more aerobically driven as a multiple-
sprint workout progresses. Peak power in subsequent sprints
during repeated, supramaximal sprints cannot be maintained
from the initial sprint, even when allowed several minutes
of recovery (3–5,31,34). There are 2 contributing factors
limiting peak power recovery: (a) phosphocreatine (PCr)
regeneration (3–5) and (b) muscle pH recovery from post-
sprint acidosis (19). Although PCr can be regenerated to
85–90% of initial value within 6 minutes of recovery (3,19),
muscle pH remains significantly depressed after several
minutes post-sprint (19). The post-exercise proton efflux rate

from the muscle fiber is the limiting factor in PCr
regeneration (19), which drives adenosine triphosphate
replenishment for immediate energy production. The de-
pendence of PCr regeneration on aerobic processes contrib-
utes to the increase in aerobic metabolism during repeated
sprints (2). Therefore, concomitant acidosis (which is
relieved by aerobic processes) and aerobically driven PCr
recovery during repeated, supramaximal sprinting indicates
enhanced aerobic bioenergetics and mitochondrial function
(19). Such aerobic enhancements are corroborated by the
observation of increased muscle oxidative enzyme activity
after supramaximal sprint interval training (9,13).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
In summary, significant improvements in PPOan:BW and
APOan:BW were observed from pretest to posttest in the SIT
and WR groups. Significant enhancement of PPOan and
APOan through 10 weeks of sprint interval training and
decrement of body weight through calorie deficit elicited the
changes in SIT and WR, respectively. However, the sprint
training and weight loss interventions acted singularly to
increase power to weight ratio. The interventions used in
combination yielded no significant effect on PPOan:BW or
APOan:BW in the SIT+WR group, likely because of
insufficient body protein retention during prolonged calorie
restriction. These data provide guidance to experienced,
nonelite, competitive cyclists looking to enhance a physio-
logical index relative to body weight, which has been
positively correlated to aerobic performance. Therefore,
cyclists can choose either sprint interval training or body
weight reduction (assuming eligibility for weight loss) to elicit
significant gains in anaerobic power to weight ratio. It should
be noted that even small, statistically nonsignificant improve-
ments in physiological measures in experienced endurance
athletes are important, knowing that time gains as small as
3% can make the difference between winning prize money or
medals, and not (18).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Financial support for this study was provided by the School of
Graduate Studies and the Graduate Student Affairs Com-
mittee at Southern Connecticut State University. The authors
thank Drs. David Kemler and Mark Berry for statistical
assistance, Marion Schafer for critical review of the
manuscript, Ian Buchanan for technical assistance, and
Jennifer Giles for nutritional consultation.
REFERENCES
1. Baron, R. Aerobic and anaerobic power characteristics of off-road
cyclists. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 1387–1393, 2001.
2. Bogdanis, G, Nevill, M, Boobis, L, and Lakomy, H. Contribution of
phosphocreatine and aerobic metabolism to energy supply during
repeated sprint exercise. J Appl Physiol 80: 876–884, 1996.
3. Bogdanis, G, Nevill, M, Boobis, L, Lakomy, H, and Nevill, A.
Recovery of power output and muscle metabolites following 30 s
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
of maximal sprint cycling in man. J Physiol 482: 467–480,
1995.
4. Bogdanis, G, Nevill, M, Lakomy, H, and Boobis, L. Power output
and muscle metabolism during and following recovery from 10 and
20 s of maximal sprint exercise in humans. Acta Physiol Scand 163:
261–272, 1998.
5. Bogdanis, G, Nevill, M, Lakomy, H, Graham, C, and Louis, G.
Effects of active recovery on power output during repeated maximal
sprint cycling. Eur J Appl Physiol 74: 461–469, 1996.
6. Brozek, J, Grande, F, Anderson, J, and Keys, A. Densitometric
analysis of body composition: Revision of some quantitative
assumptions. Ann N Y Acad Sci 110: 113–140, 1963.
7. Burgomaster, K, Cermak, N, Phillips, S, Benton, C, Bonen, A, and
Gibala, M. Divergent response of metabolite transport proteins in
human skeletal muscle after sprint interval training and detraining.
Am J Physiol Reg Integr Comp Physiol 292: R1970–R1976, 2007.
8. Burgomaster, K, Howarth, K, Phillips, S, Rakobowchuk, M,
MacDonald, M, McGee, S, and Gibala, M. Similar metabolic
adaptations during exercise after low volume sprint interval and
traditional endurance training in humans. J Physiol 586: 151–160,
2008.
9. Burgomaster, K, Hughes, S, Heigenhauser, G, Bradwell, S, and
Gibala, M. Six sessions of sprint interval training increases muscle
oxidative potential and cycle endurance capacity in humans. J Appl
Physiol 98: 1985–1990, 2005.
10. Creer, A, Ricard, M, Conlee, R, Hoyt, G, and Parcell, A. Neural,
metabolic, and performance adaptations to four weeks of high
intensity sprint interval training in trained cyclists. Int J Sports Med
25: 92–98, 2004.
11. Davison, R, Swan, D, Coleman, D, and Bird, S. Correlates of hill
climb cycling performance. J Sports Sci 18: 105–110, 2000.
12. Fogelholm, G, Koskinen, R, Laasko, J, Rankinen, T, and Ruokenen, I.
Gradual and rapid weight loss: Effects on nutrition and performance
in male athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25: 371–377, 1993.
13. Gibala, M, Little, J, van Essen, M, Wilkin, G, Burgomaster, K, Safdar,
A, Raha, S, and Tarnopolsky, M. Short-term sprint interval versus
traditional endurance training: Similar initial adaptations in human
skeletal muscle and exercise performance. J Physiol 575(Pt 3): 901–
911, 2006.
14. Glaister, M, Stone, M, Stewart, A, Hughes, M, and Moir, G. Aerobic
and anaerobic correlates of multiple sprint cycling performance.
J Strength Cond Res 20: 792–798, 2006.
15. Gregory, J, Johns, D, and Walls, J. Relative vs. absolute physiological
measures as predictors of mountain bike cross country race
performance. J Strength Cond Res 21: 17–22, 2007.
16. Hawley, J and Noakes, T. Peak power output predicts maximal
oxygen uptake and performance time in trained cyclists. Eur J Appl
Physiol 65: 79–83, 1992.
17. Hopkins, S and McKenzie, D. The laboratory assessment of endurance
performance in cyclists. Can J Appl Physiol 19: 266–274, 1994.
18. Hopkins, W, Hawley, J, and Burke, L. Design and analysis of
research on sport performance enhancement. Med Sci Sports Exerc
31: 472–485, 1999.
19. Hug, F, Grélot, L, Le Fur, Y, Cozzone, P, and Bendahan, D.
Recovery kinetics throughout successive bouts of various exercises
in elite cyclists. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: 2151–2158, 2006.
20. Impellizzeri, F, Marcora, S, Rampinini, E, Mognoni P, and Sassi, A.
Correlations between physiological variables and performance in
high level cross country off road cyclists. Br J Sports Med 39: 747–
751, 2005.
21. Impellizzeri, F, Rampinini, E, Sassi, A, Mognoni, P, and Marcora, S.
Physiological correlates to off-road cycling performance. J Sports Sci
23: 41–47, 2005.
22. Inbar, O, Bar-Or, O, and Skinner, J. The Wingate Anaerobic Test.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1996. pp. 8.
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 4 | JULY 2009 | 1223
Effects of SIT and BW Reduction on Power to Weight Ratio
23. Jackson, A and Pollock, M. Generalized equations for predicting
body density of men. Br J Nutr 40: 497–504, 1978.
24. Jackson, A, Pollock, M, and Ward, A. Generalized equations predicting
body density of women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 12: 175–182, 1980.
25. Laursen, P, Blanchard, M, and Jenkins, D. Acute high-intensity
interval training improves Tvent and peak power output in highly
trained males. Can J Appl Physiol 27: 336–348, 2002.
26. Laursen, P, Shing, C, Peake, J, Coombes, J, and Jenkins, D. Interval
training program optimization on highly trained endurance cyclists.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 1801–1807, 2002.
27. Laursen, P, Shing, C, Peake, J, Coombes, J, and Jenkins, D. Influence
of high-intensity interval training on adaptations in well-trained
cyclists. J Strength Cond Res 19: 527–533, 2005.
28. Lee, H, Martin, D, Anson, J, Grundy, D, and Hahn, A. Physiological
characteristics of successful mountain bikers and professional road
cyclists. J Sports Sci 20: 1001–1008, 2002.
29. Lindsay, F, Hawley, J, Myburgh, K, Schomer, H, Noakes, T, and
Dennis, S. Improved athletic performance in highly trained cyclists
after interval training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 28: 1427–1434, 1996.
30. Lucı́a, A, Joyos, H, and Chicharro, J. Physiological response to
professional road cycling: Climbers vs. time trialists. Int J Sports Med
21: 505–512, 2000.
31. Mavrommataki, E, Bogdanis, G, Kaloupsis, S, and Maridaki, M.
Recovery of power output and heart rate kinetics during repeated
bouts of rowing exercise with different rest intervals. J Sports Sci 5:
115–122, 2006.
32. McCartney, N, Heigenhauser, G, and Jones, N. Power output and
fatigue of human muscle in maximal cycling exercise. J Appl Physiol
55: 218–224, 1983.
33. Padilla, S, Mujika, I, Cuesta, G, and Goirena, J. Level ground and
uphill cycling ability in professional road cycling. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 31: 878–885, 1999.
the TM
1224 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
34. Parolin, M, Chesley, A, Matsos, M, Spriet, L, Jones, N, and
Heigenhauser, G. Regulation of skeletal muscle glycogen phos-
phorylase and PDH during maximal intermittent exercise. Am J
Physiol Endocrinol Metab 277: E890–E900, 1999.
35. Paton, C and Hopkins, W. Combining explosive and high-resistance
training improves performance in competitive cyclists. J Strength
Cond Res 19: 826–830, 2005.
36. Ross, A and Leveritt, M. Long-term metabolic and skeletal muscle
adaptations to short-sprint training: Implications for sprint training
and tapering. Sports Med 31: 1063–1082, 2001.
37. Stepto, N, Hawley, J, Dennis, S, and Hopkins, W. Effects of different
interval-training programs on cycling time-trial performance. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 31: 736–741, 1999.
38. Swain, D. The influence of body mass on endurance cycling
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 26: 58–63, 1994.
39. Tanaka, H, Bassett Jr, D, Swensen, T, and Sampedro, R. Aerobic
and anaerobic power characteristics of competitive cyclists in the
United States Cycling Federation. Int J Sports Med 14: 334–338,
1993.
40. Thomas, M, Fiatarone, M, and Fielding, R. Leg power in young
women: Relationship to body composition, strength, and function.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 28: 1321–1326, 1996.
41. Walberg, J, Leidy, M, Sturgill, D, Hinkle, D, Ritchey, S, and Sebolt, D.
Macronutrient content of a hypoenergy diet affects nitrogen
retention and muscle function in weight lifters. Int J Sports Med 9:
261–266, 1988.
42. Walberg Rankin, J. Weight loss and gain in athletes. Curr Sports
Med Rep 1: 208–213, 2002.
43. Westgarth-Taylor, C, Hawley, J, Rickard, S, Myburgh, K, Noakes, T,
and Dennis, S. Metabolic and performance adaptations to interval
training in endurance-trained cyclists. Eur J Appl Physiol 75: 298–
304, 1997.