This study primarily aimed to investigate the inflammatory response after performing a repeat-sprint running protocol under both normoxic and hypoxic conditions. There was a time effect observed for certain cytokines (i.e., IL-6, IL-8, IL-10) which indicates a response to the exercise stimulus; however, hypoxia did not alter the pro- or anti-inflammatory cytokine response, which is in opposition to the proposed hypothesis. This finding suggests that performing RSH elicits a comparable inflammatory response to RSN. However, blood lactate was higher, and blood oxygen saturation was lower, in RSH when compared to RSN. Although a handful of studies have investigated the inflammatory response to performing exercise under hypoxic conditions (e.g., Badenhorst et al., 2014; Govus et al., 2014; Sumi et al., 2017), only one previous study (Goods et al., 2016) has measured an inflammatory biomarker (i.e., IL-6) after completion of a RSH protocol. Goods and colleagues (2016) reported an increase in IL-6 concentrations both immediately and 60-min post exercise, with a trend for higher IL-6 in the hypoxic condition 60-min after completion of the exercise protocol. In line with these findings (Goods et al., 2016) and those reported by the previous interval training studies conducted in hypoxia (Badenhorst et al., 2014; Govus et al., 2014; Sumi et al., 2017), the current study observed an increase in IL-6 concentrations at the cessation of exercise when compared to baseline levels. However, unlike the prior RSH study (Goods et al., 2016), no difference was observed in IL-6 concentrations between the hypoxic and normoxic conditions at any time point. Interestingly, only the study by Goods et al (2016) reported a difference in IL-6 concentrations between the hypoxic and normoxic trials; the studies utilising longer intervals (3-4 min) all reported a comparable IL-6 response irrespective of condition (Badenhorst et al., 2014; Govus et al., 2014; Sumi et al., 2017). When measured 3-h post-exercise, IL-6 had returned to pre-exercise levels in the present study, which supports the findings of Govus et al (2014) who observed IL-6 concentrations comparable to baseline levels 3 h after completion of an interval training protocol in hypoxia. Conversely, Goods et al (2016) and Sumi et al (2017) reported elevated IL-6 concentrations (when compared to pre-exercise values) 60 min and 120 min post-exercise, respectively. This disparity is likely due to the different sampling times utilised; differences may have been observed in the present study had the blood been sampled at 60-min or 120-min post exercise as opposed to 3-h post-exercise. However, the fact that IL-6 concentrations returned to baseline levels within 3 h, and that comparable concentrations were observed for both conditions, suggests that performing RSH does not elicit an exacerbated IL-6 response. Interestingly, the magnitude of the increase in IL-6 in the present study was similar to that observed by Goods et al (2016), despite the present study utilising a running protocol which typically induces a greater inflammatory response when compared with cycling exercise (Nieman et al., 1998). Indeed, greater increases in IL-6 concentrations were reported after each of the longer interval-training studies (Badenhorst et al., 2014; Govus et al., 2014; Sumi et al., 2017), all of which were performed on a treadmill. Thus, the relatively modest increase in IL-6 concentrations (~75%) observed after the current protocol can most likely be attributed to the relatively short duration of the exercise bouts rather than the mode of exercise utilised. The previous studies investigating the inflammatory response to training under hypoxic conditions have used IL-6 as the sole inflammatory biomarker, which may be problematic when trying to apply the findings given IL-6 exhibits both pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory properties (Petersen and Pedersen, 2005). Thus, the current research sought to provide a more nuanced understanding of the inflammatory response to RSH through the inclusion of other key pro-inflammatory (IL-1β, IL-8, TNF-α) and anti-inflammatory (IL-1ra, and IL-10) cytokines. There was no apparent effect of the exercise protocol (during either condition) on the production of TNFa or IL-1β. This finding is perhaps unsurprising, as although TNFa and IL-1β are the first cytokines to be released during sepsis/infection, generally speaking they are not induced in response to an exercise stimulus alone (Pedersen et al., 1998; Petersen and Pedersen, 2005). Interestingly, no change was detected in IL-1ra concentrations across the course of the protocol, which could be considered unusual given that IL-6 was elevated and IL-1ra typically acts as a cytokine inhibitor (Petersen and Pedersen, 2005). Furthermore, there was no difference in the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 between pre- and immediately post exercise; in studies investigating longer exercise durations (e.g., distance running), increased concentrations of IL-10 have typically been reported immediately post-exercise (Nieman et al., 2001; Ostrowski et al., 1999; Peake et al., 2005) in response to dramatic increases in IL-6 (Pedersen, 2000). These results may be explained, at least in part, by the relatively modest increase observed for IL-6 (IL-6 concentrations can be increased up to 100-fold after a marathon, for example; Pedersen, 2000) and the short duration of the exercise protocol, both of which play an important role in determining the extent of the post-exercise cytokine response (Flynn et al., 2007; Petersen and Pedersen, 2005). Finally, the chemokine IL-8 decreased at each time point throughout the protocol. Exercise does not typically increase the concentrations of circulatory IL-8 (Moldoveanu et al., 2001), although there is relatively strong evidence to suggest that IL-8 is released from working skeletal muscle during exercise and acts locally (Frydelund-Larsen et al., 2007). The reason behind the observed decrease in plasma IL-8 from pre- to immediately post-exercise, and again from immediately post-exercise to 3 h post-exercise, is not immediately clear, and thus requires further investigation. However, the addition of hypoxia did not differentially influence the IL-8 response, which was the primary focus of the present research. Indeed, the current findings suggest that the relative risk of a repeat-sprint training session inducing significant inflammation is low regardless of environment, given the protocol did not elicit significant inflammatory responses in either hypoxic or normoxic conditions. As expected, blood oxygen saturation was lower in the hypoxic trial when compared with the normoxic trial (Goods et al., 2016; West et al., 1962), whereas blood lactate concentrations were higher. The findings for blood lactate corroborate the findings reported by previous studies performed in hypoxia utilising longer exercise intervals (Sumi et al., 2017) and continuous incremental exercise (Hughson et al., 1995), as well as another RSH study performed on a non-motorised treadmill (Goods et al., 2014). However, they differ from the findings reported by Goods and colleagues (2016) who observed no difference in blood lactate in hypoxia when compared to sea-level during a repeated-sprint cycling protocol. This is likely due to the fact that subjects in the Goods et al (2016) study performed less work in the hypoxic trial, whereas there was no effect of condition on sprint distance observed in the current study. It should also be noted that there is a ~10% (non-significant) difference in pre-test [La] that may reflect slight differences in warm-up intensity or pacing, which may have influenced the overall lactate kinetics throughout the protocol. Nevertheless, the magnitude of the difference in peak blood lactate in the present study was small (10.5 compared to 11.5 mmol/L) and well below the limits typically achieved during repeated-sprint training (Spencer et al., 2005). Thus, the observed differences between the hypoxic and normoxic condition are unlikely to be practically meaningful in terms of the athletes’ recovery. The ability of athletes to maintain sprint distance despite the lower FiO2 during RSH in the present study may be explained, at least in part, by the increase in anaerobic energy release that has been suggested to compensate for a reduction in aerobic ATP production during sprinting in hypoxia (Calbet et al., 2003; Girard et al., 2017). Furthermore, in comparison to the Goods et al (2016) study, the present study utilised shorter (4 v 5 s) and fewer (16 v 27) sprints, a lower within-set work-to-rest ratio (1:6 v 1:4), and a passive recovery, all of which are likely to have contributed to the maintenance of sprint distance during RSH when compared with RSN. |