(57) LESS VOLUME IN THE SAME HIGH INTENSITY FUNCTIONAL TRAINING WORKOUT LED TO FASTER REPETITION COMPLETION RATES, SHORTER BREAKS AND TRANSITIONS

Purpose: High intensity functional training (HIFT) is composed of measurable and foundational movement patterns organized into multifarious structures, creating systemic challenges that result in multiple fitness adaptations throughout the body. Whether the workout is task or time oriented, the goal remains to complete the most amount of work as quickly as possible. The amount of work prescribed will obviously affect workout duration, but it is unclear how the same movements performed at different volumes affect pacing strategy. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effect of volume on pacing during HIFT. Methods: Men (27.6 ± 7.6 years, 177 ± 8 cm, 83.6 ± 7.5 kg) and women (25.8 ± 7.8 years, 169 ± 6 cm, 74.5 ± 13.1 kg) with at least 6 months of HIFT experience completed two experimental workouts that differed in volume only. Participants maintained their normal dietary and training habits throughout the study and reported to the Human Performance Laboratory on two occasions within approximately one week and after having avoided vigorous physical activity for 24 hours. Following a standard warm-up, participants completed five rounds of power cleans (men: 52.2 kg; women: 34.0 kg), toes-to-bar, and wall balls (men: 9.1 kg medicine ball to a 3.1-m target; women: 6.4 kg medicine ball to a 2.7-m target) at either a lower- (LV: 5, 10, and 15 repetitions) or higher-volume (HV: 10, 15, and 20 repetitions) prescription. Workouts were video recorded from a standard position and analyzed to quantify average repetition completion rate, the number and duration of breaks, and average transition times for each exercise and round throughout LV and HV. The standard deviation of across rounds was quantified for each variable and divided by the average to calculate a coefficient of variation (CV, %).  Results: Separate Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed significant (p < 0.05) differences between HV and LV in most pacing variables. Overall repetition rate was faster in LV (15.7 ± 5.5 reps·min^-1, p < 0.001) compared to HV (11.8 ± 4 reps·min^-1, p < 0.001), and this extended to each exercise (0.07 – 0.19 repetitions·sec^-1, p < 0.001) and round (~0.7 repetitions·sec^-1, p < 0.001). There were fewer and shorter breaks (0.6 – 1.8 fewer breaks that were 9.1 – 17.1 seconds shorter, p < 0.001) and shorter transitions (4.8 – 11.7 seconds, p < 0.001) during LV. Similar outcomes were observed in breaks and transitions over the entire round (p < 0.05). Variability in power clean rate and breaks were more consistent during LV (15.8 – 42.8%, p < 0.05). No other differences were observed. Conclusions: Repetition rates were faster during the low-volume workout. There were less breaks for less time, and transitions were faster between all three movements. Power clean rates and breaks were also more consistent during the low-volume workout. Practical Applications: The data suggests that increasing volume in a HIFT workout may slow down performance across several pacing variables. Understanding how volume influences HIFT pacing helps trainers and athletes better match performance expectations with the intended stimulus. Acknowledgements: None