The 30-15 intermittent fitness test: relevance for interval training of intermittent
sport players
Buchheit Martin
Lab. des Régulations Physiol. et des Rythmes Biol. chez l'Homme, 4 rue Kirschleger, 67085 Strasbourg Cedex,
France.
Introduction
With the exception of track and field endurance activities, the nature of most sport exercise is intermittent. High
intensity endurance training in such sports is then usually exercised through intermittent runs, with running speeds
set according to individual velocity associated with the VO2max (maximal aerobic speed, MAS) of each athlete. So as
to introduce accelerations, decelerations and changes of direction, which are specific to intermittent sports, exercises
1
are mainly composed of shuttle runs. Except for one soccer-specific test , the popular field tests described in the
2
3
literature are based on continuous linear runs or continuous shuttle runs. MAS obtained with these continuous tests
are then reached through an effort which is much different from a game activity, and they do not objectively appear
adapted for shuttle interval training sessions of intermittent sport players. We propose here the 30-15 intermittent
2,3
fitness test (30-15IFT) as an alternative to continuous field tests
for the determination of an appropriate MAS in
intermittent sport players. It is a progressive running multistage field test, which consists of 30-sec 40 m shuttle runs
interspersed with 15-sec passive recovery periods (velocity first set at 8 km.h-1, increased by 0.5 km.h-1 every 45-sec
stage thereafter). The purpose of the present work is to examine its pertinence and reproducibility.
Methods
60 young intermittent sport players (age 16.2 ± 2.3 yr) took part in the study. We first compare MAS obtained with 301
15IFT to MAS measured with two popular continuous tests, the University of Montreal track test (UM-TT) and the 20
2
m shuttle run test (20mSRT) . We compare the associations among the three MAS obtained and intermittent sportspecific physiological capacities, such as maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), explosive power of lower limbs
(estimated from a 10 m sprinting time (10 m) and countermovement jumping (CMJ) tests), and cardiorespiratory
recovery ability evaluated through short-term heart rate (HR) recovery during exercise (HRRE). Secondly, we compare
the rate of perceived exertion (RPE) characterizing the 30-15IFT and the two popular field tests. In a separate series
of experiments, tests and retests were performed to look at the reproducibility of the 30-15IFT.
200
180
160
140
120
100
Athlete A
Athlete B
10
12
14
16
18
-1
Running Speed (km.h )
20
10 m (sec)
40
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
35
r = 0.63
p < 0.05
1.7
1.6
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
14
22
12
60
r = 0.65
p < 0.05
55
140
45
40
20
21
22
21
22
9
8
6
5
4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
MAS30-15IFT (km.h-1)
MAS30-15IFT (km.h-1)
Fig. 1: Relationship between MAS30-15IFT and
60
12
19
7
14
Athlete A
Athlete B
18
10
25
120
17
r = 0.47
p < 0.01
11
30
10
16
MAS30-15IFT (km.h-1)
35
8
15
MAS30-15IFT (km.h-1)
160
80
60
45
14
100
80
2.2
50
180
HR (bpm)
HR (bpm)
30-15IFT
2.3
50
HRRE
200
2.4
r = 0.68
p < 0.05
55
30
CMJ (cm)
UM-TT
60
VO2max (ml.min.kg-1)
Results
Relative to the two continuous tests, MAS30-15IFT was
significantly higher (p<0.001) and RPE during the 30-15IFT
significantly lower (p<0.001). MAS30-15IFT was significantly
correlated with all intermittent sport-specific physiological
capacities (p<0.05). The relationships between MAS and
explosive power indexes were stronger for the 30-15IFT than for
the UM-TT, which were both weaker than with the 20mSRT.
Test-retest values for MAS30-15IFT were similar, with a low
coefficient of variation (4.3%).
14
16
18
20
22
24
Running speed (km.h-1)
intermittent sport-specific physiological capacities
Fig. 2: Individual HR profiles as a function of running speed for two subjects presenting different MAS determined with the UM-TT
-1
-1
(MASUM-TT of 15 vs 18 km.h ) but quite similar MAS obtained with the 30-15IFT (MAS30-15IFT of 19.5 vs 20 km.h ). Athlete B presents
lower VO2max than Athlete A but greatly higher explosive strength and HR recovery index.
Discussion/Conclusion
Compared to both continuous tests, the inclusion of recovery periods could be responsible of the increase in maximal
running speed (from 2 to 5.5 km.h-1) during the 30-15IFT. The closer association between MAS30-15IFT and explosive
strength indexes compared to the MASUM-TT could be related to the higher muscular demands of the repeated starts
and stops at the beginning and end of each stage, and to the large number of changes of direction inherent in shuttle
runs during the 30-15IFT. Although the 20mSRT is better correlated with power of lower limbs than the 30-15IFT, it
does not involve recovery abilities. The 30-15IFT is then the only field test that takes into account all intermittent sportspecific physiological capacities together. Since the 30-15IFT is also reproducible and poorly painful, it appears to be a
relevant tool for fitness evaluation and training prescription for intermittent sport players.
References
1
Krustrup P et al (2003). Med Sci Sports Exerc, 35:697-705
2
Leger LA et al. (1980). Can J Appl Sport Sci, 5:77-84
3
Leger LA, et al. (1982). Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol, 49:1-12