(64) RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN RELATIVE STRENGTH AND ENDURANCE ON PACING STRATEGY IN A LOW- AND HIGH-VOLUME HIGH-INTENSITY FUNCTIONAL TRAINING WORKOUT

Purpose: High intensity functional training (HIFT) workouts often challenge trainees to complete workloads as fast as possible. Their speed depends on several factors, including their current fitness and the relative difficulty of the tasks assigned to a given workout. However, the relative difficulty of individual tasks versus their collective difficulty as part of a workout may not be the same. Although some studies have identified absolute pacing as a metric of HIFT intensity, none have viewed it as a relative (to individual capability) measure nor have comparisons been made between it and more traditional forms of describing exercise intensity. The purpose of this study is to relate relative pace employed for each exercise and round of low- (LV) and high-volume (HV) versions of the same HIFT circuit with relative strength and muscle endurance. Methods: Ten men and nine women (26.7 ± 7.6 years; 173 ± 8 cm; 79.3 ± 11.2 kg) who possessed at least six months of HIFT experience volunteered to complete one baseline and two randomized experimental visits, separated by at least 48 hours. Baseline assessments included one-repetition maximum (1-RM) power clean and RM toes-to-bar (TTB) and wall ball shots (WB). Following a standard warm-up, experimental visits had participants complete five repetitions of PC (men = 52.2 kg; women = 34.0 kg), TTB and WB as fast as possible, as well as one round (RD) of either a LV (5 x PC, 10 x WB, 15 x WB) or HV (10 x PC, 15 x WB, 20 x WB) workout to determine maximal pace in each. Participants then rested five minutes before completing five rounds of LV or HV for time. The order in which LV and HV were completed was randomized. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to determine relationships between more traditional measures of intensity (e.g., relative intensity of assigned PC loads to 1-RM, and assigned TTB and WB repetitions per round to each exercise’s respective RM) and intensity based on pace (i.e., average pace of each exercise and round divided by maximal pace determined during the warm-ups) for LV and HV. Results: Positive relationships (p < 0.001) were observed with TTB performance (between %RM and % max pace) during both workouts (r = 0.76 – 0.77). The % of max pace for TTB was also related to WB %RM in LV (r = 0.68, p < 0.001) and HV (r = 0.56, p = 0.013). The % of max RD pace was related to both %RM of TTB (r = 0.68, p < 0.001) and WB (r = 0.65, p = 0.002) during LV, but only to WB (r = 0.55, p = 0.016) during HV. No other significant relationships were found. Conclusions: The average relative TTB pace was related to the number of repetitions prescribed to TTB and WB, relative to the individual’s endurance in each for both LV and HV. WB endurance was also related to RD pace in both workout volumes, whereas TTB endurance was only related to round pace during LV. No relationships were seen with PC performance. Practical Applications: The data suggests that toes-to-bar and wall ball shot endurance is relevant to overall pace and/or pacing in those specific exercises. Athletes and coaches might consider focusing on developing endurance in these movements, as they are two of the most common exercises that appear in HIFT programming. Acknowledgements: The Kennesaw State University Office of Undergraduate Research provided funding for this study.