The LSD pairwise comparisons indicated that the increase in VT from pre- to post-testing was greater for the HMBFA-HIIT group than for the CTL (p = 0.012) and the PLA-HIIT groups (p = 0.017), however, no differences were found between PLA-HIIT and CTL groups (p = 0.6). The group means (±SEM) for the posttest

VT values, adjusted for initial differences in pretest scores, are shown in Figure 7. Figure 7 Ventilatory Threshold (VT). Mean values (+SEM) for posttest VT scores adjusted for the initial differences in pretest VT (covariate; adjusted pretest mean = 28.68). *HMBFA-HIIT significantly greater than PLA-HIIT (p = 0.017) and CTL (p = 0.012). Power at Ventilatory Threshold (PVT) The ANCOVA indicated a significant difference (p = 0.009, η2 = 0.267) among the group means for the post-test PVT values after adjusting for pre-test differences (Figure 8). The strength NSC23766 mouse of the association (i.e., effect size, η2) indicated that the treatment groups (CTL, PLA-HIIT, HMBFA-HIIT) accounted for 27% of the variance of the post-test PVT values, holding constant the pre-test PVT scores. The LSD pairwise comparisons indicated that the increase in PVT from

pre- to post-testing was Emricasan greater for the HMBFA-HIIT group than for the CTL (p = 0.004) and the PLA-HIIT groups (p = 0.027), however, no differences were found between PLA-HIIT and CTL groups (p = 0.277). The group means (±SEM) for the posttest PVT values, adjusted for initial differences in pretest scores, are shown in Figure 8. Figure 8 Power at ventilatory threshold (PVT). Mean values (+SEM) for posttest PVT scores adjusted for the initial differences in pretest

PVT (covariate; adjusted pretest mean = 160.29). *HMBFA-HIIT significantly greater than PLA-HIIT (p = 0.027) and CTL (p = 0.004). Body composition The ANCOVA indicated no significant difference for body mass (p = 0.31, η2 = 0.074) percent body fat (p = 0.88, η2 = 0.009), and lean soft tissue mass (p = 0.247, η2 = 0.089) between the groups (Table 3). Training volume There was no significant difference (p = 0.31) between training volumes for PLA-HIIT (1437.0 ± 309.6 kJ) and HMBFA-HIIT (1456.8 ± 378.6 kJ). Dietary analysis heptaminol There was no significant difference for daily energy Selleckchem Doramapimod intake (p = 0.159; PLA-HIIT, 2398.7 ± 619 Kcal; HMBFA-HIIT, 2011 ± 620 Kcal) or leucine intake (p = 0.561; PLA-HIIT, 3.3 ± 1.7 g; HMBFA-HIIT, 3.9 ± 2.1 g) between the two treatment groups. Supplementation compliance and plasma HMBFA concentrations Placebo or HMBFA intake was recorded on individual intake logs, which were returned to the laboratory and monitored and resulted in 99% compliance. In addition, there was a significant interaction (F = 5.9, p = 0.02) for blood plasma HMBFA concentrations. The HMBFA-HIIT group increased by 2.6 ± 2.1 nmol∙ml-1 with little change in the PLA-HIIT group (0.1 ± 0.9 nmol∙ml-1), further supporting compliance in the treatment group.