Table 1.
Participants’ physiological and endurance performance measurements.
| Measurement | BL | PN | PH | PR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 22.3 ± 5.2 | – | – | – |
| Height | 178.1 ± 10.7 | – | – | – |
| Body mass | 78.8 ± 12.1 | 79.0 ± 12.9 | 78.0 ± 12.5 | 77.9 ± 11.8# |
| BMI | 24.8 ± 2.9 | 24.9 ± 3.2 | 24.6 ± 3.0 | 24.5 ± 2.9# |
| V̇O2Peak | 46.7 ± 8.2 | 47.7 ± 8.8 | 50.5 ± 6.0*# | 50.0 ± 6.0* |
| ẆLT | 174.1 ± 30.7 | 182.5 ± 33.0 | 222.2 ± 36.2*# | 219.6 ± 31.4*# |
| Ẇpeak | 231.1 ± 43.2 | 233.2 ± 43.5 | 266.3 ± 42.4*# | 264.5 ± 40.4*# |
| 20k-TT time | 2321.0 ± 168.1 | 2309.1 ± 257.4 | 2094.6 ± 130.8*# | 2030.1 ± 140.5*# |
BL baseline, PN post normal-volume training, PH post high-volume training, PR post reduced-volume training, BMI body mass index [kg m−2], V̇O2Peak peak oxygen uptake [mL min−1 kg−1], ẆLT power at the lactate threshold [Watts], Ẇpeak peak power output [Watts], 20k-TT 20-km time trial [seconds].
Source data are provided as a Source Data file. P values reported in the table were: P = 0.040 for PR vs. PN in “Body mass”; P = 0.041 for PR vs. PN in “BMI”; P = 0.004 for PH vs. BL, P = 0.046 for PH vs. PN, and P = 0.014 for PR vs. BL in “V̇O2Peak”; P = 4.5e−10 for PH vs. BL, P = 2.5e−8 for PH vs. PN, P = 1.5e−9 for PR vs. BL, and P = 9.6e−8 for PR vs. PN in “ẆLT”; P = 1.1e−8 for PH vs. BL, P = 3.8e−8 for PH vs. PN, P = 3.3e−8 for PR vs. BL, and P = 1.1e−7 for PR vs. PN in “Ẇpeak”; P = 4.3e−6 for PH vs. BL, P = 1.0e−5 for PH vs. PN, P = 4.6e−8 for PR vs. BL, and P = 1.0e−7 for PR vs. PN in “20k-TT time”. All values are mean ± SD; n = 10 for all analyses; all datasets analysed by repeated measures one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc testing; P < 0.05 * vs. BL, # vs. PN.