The delta concept does not effectively normalise exercise responses to exhaustive interval training.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to quantify inter- and intra-individual variability in performance, physiological, and perceptual responses to high-intensity interval training prescribed using the percentage of delta (%Δ) method, in which the gas exchange threshold and maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max) are taken into account to normalise relative exercise intensity. DESIGN: Repeated-measures, within-subjects design with mixed-effects modelling. METHODS: Eighteen male and four female cyclists (age: 36 ±â€¯12 years, height: 178 ±â€¯10 cm, body mass: 75.2 ±â€¯13.7 kg, V̇O2max: 51.6 ±â€¯5.3 ml·kg-1·min-1) undertook an incremental test to exhaustion to determine the gas exchange threshold and V̇O2max as prescription benchmarks. On separate occasions, participants then completed four high-intensity interval training sessions of identical intensity (70 %Δ) and format (4-min on, 2-min off); all performed to exhaustion. Acute high-intensity interval training responses were modelled with participant as a random effect to provide estimates of inter- and intra-individual variability. RESULTS: Greater variability was generally observed at the between- compared with the within-individual level, ranging from 50 % to 89 % and from 11 % to 50 % of the total variability, respectively. For the group mean time to exhaustion of 20.3 min, inter- and intra-individual standard deviations reached 9.3 min (coefficient of variation = 46 %) and 4.5 min (coefficient of variation = 22 %), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the high variability observed, the %Δ method does not effectively normalise the relative intensity of exhaustive high-intensity interval training across individuals. The generally larger inter- versus intra-individual variability suggests that day-to-day biological fluctuations and/or measurement errors cannot explain the identified shortcoming of the method.

Conventional methods to prescribe exercise intensity are ineffective for exhaustive interval training.

PURPOSE: To compare methods of relative intensity prescription for their ability to normalise performance (i.e., time to exhaustion), physiological, and perceptual responses to high-intensity interval training (HIIT) between individuals. METHODS: Sixteen male and two female cyclists (age: 38 ± 11 years, height: 177 ± 7 cm, body mass: 71.6 ± 7.9 kg, maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O2max): 54.3 ± 8.9 ml·kg-1 min-1) initially undertook an incremental test to exhaustion, a 3 min all-out test, and a 20 min time-trial to determine prescription benchmarks. Then, four HIIT sessions (4 min on, 2 min off) were each performed to exhaustion at: the work rate associated with the gas exchange threshold ([Formula: see text]GET) plus 70% of the difference between [Formula: see text]GET and the work rate associated with [Formula: see text]O2max; 85% of the maximal work rate of the incremental test (85%[Formula: see text]max); 120% of the mean work rate of the 20 min time-trial (120%TT); and the work rate predicted to expend, in 4 min, 80% of the work capacity above critical power. Acute HIIT responses were modelled with participant as a random effect to provide estimates of inter-individual variability. RESULTS: For all dependent variables, the magnitude of inter-individual variability was high, and confidence intervals overlapped substantially, indicating that the relative intensity normalisation methods were similarly poor. Inter-individual coefficients of variation for time to exhaustion varied from 44.2% (85%[Formula: see text]max) to 59.1% (120%TT), making it difficult to predict acute HIIT responses for an individual. CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that the methods of intensity prescription investigated do not normalise acute responses to HIIT between individuals.

Spatial grain of adaptation is much finer than ecoregional-scale common gardens reveal.

Adaptive variation among plant populations must be known for effective conservation and restoration of imperiled species and predicting their responses to a changing climate. Common-garden experiments, in which plants sourced from geographically distant populations are grown together such that genetic differences may be expressed, have provided much insight on adaptive variation. Common-garden experiments also form the foundation for climate-based seed-transfer guidelines. However, the spatial scale at which population differentiation occurs is rarely addressed, leaving a critical information gap for parameterizing seed-transfer guidelines and assessing species' climate vulnerability. We asked whether adaptation was evident among populations of a foundational perennial within a single "empirical" seed-transfer zone (based on previous common-garden findings evaluating very distant populations) but different "provisional" seed zones (groupings of areas of similar climate and are not parameterized from common-garden data). Seedlings from three populations originating from similar conditions within an intermediate elevation were planted into gardens nearby at the same elevation, or 250-450 m higher or lower in elevation and 0.4-25 km away. Substantial variation was observed between gardens in survival (ranging 2%-99%), foliar crown volume (7.8-22.6 dm3), and reproductive effort (0%-65%), but not among the three transplanted populations. The between garden variation was inversely related to climatic differences between the gardens and seed-source populations, specifically the site differences in maximum-minimum annual temperatures. Results suggest that substantial site-specificity in adaptation can occur at finer scales than is accounted for in empirical seed-transfer guidance when the guidance is derived from broadscale common-garden studies. Being within the same empirical seed zone, geographic unit, and even within 10 km distance may not qualify as "local" in the context of seed transfer. Moving forward, designing common-garden experiments so that they allow for testing the scale of adaptation will help in translating the resulting seed-transfer guidance to restoration projects.