Share this article on:

Effect of Two Different Long–Sprint Training Regimens on Sprint Performance and Associated Metabolic Responses

Hanon, Christine; Bernard, Olivier; Rabate, Mathieu; Claire, Thomas

The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: June 2012 - Volume 26 - Issue 6 - p 1551–1557
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318231a6b5
Original Research

Hanon, C, Bernard, O, Rabate, M, and Claire, T. Effect of two different long-sprint training regimens on sprint performance and associated metabolic responses. J Strength Cond Res 26(6): 1551–1557, 2012—The purpose of this study was to analyze 2 different long-sprint training programs (TPs) of equal total work load, completed either with short recovery (SR) or long recovery (LR) between sets and to compare the effects of 6 long-sprint training sessions (TSs) conducted over a 2-week period on a 300-m performance. Fourteen trained subjects performed 3 pretraining maximal sprints (50-, 100-, and 300-m), were paired according to their 300-m performance, and randomly allocated to an LR or SR group, which performed 6 TSs consisting of sets of 150, 200, or 250 m. The recovery in the LR group was double that of the SR group. During the third TS and the 300-m pretest and posttest, blood pH, bicarbonate concentration (



), excess-base (EB), and lactate concentration were recorded. Compared with a similar TS performed with SR, the LR training tends to induce a greater alteration of the acid-base balance: pH: 7.09 ± 0.08 (LR) and 7.14 ± 0.05 (SR) (p = 0.10),



: 7.8 ± 1.9 (LR) and 9.6 ± 2.7 (SR) (p = 0.04), and EB: −21.1 ± 3.8 (LR) and −17.7 ± 2.8 (SR) (p = 0.11). A significant improvement in the 300-m performance between pre-TP and post-TP (42.45 ± 2.64 vs. 41.52 ± 2.45, p = 0.01) and significant decreases in pH (p < 0.01), EB (p < 0.001) and increase in [La] (p < 0.001) have been observed post-TP compared with those pre-TP. Although sprint training with longer recovery induces higher metabolic disturbances, both sprint training regimens allow a similar 300-m performance improvement with no concomitant significant progress in the 50- and 100-m performance.

1Laboratory of Biomechanics and Physiology, French National Institute of Sports (INSEP), Paris, France

2Laboratory of the Physiologically Adapted to the Physical Activities, Sport Sciences Faculty of Poitiers, Poitiers, France

3STAPS Department, University of Evry Val d'Essonne, Evry, France

Address correspondence to C. Hanon,

Copyright © 2012 by the National Strength & Conditioning Association.