緒論：應以高強度間歇訓練的多少心率百分比應用到專項羽球訓練的強度，仍有待研究探討。此外，科技產品日益盛行在運動科學領域，也似乎被認為是有助於運動員訓練的工具。然而，科技產品對於專業競技訓練的效益仍有待驗證。因此，本研究探討2週高強度羽球步法間歇訓練輔以燈號訓練系統（FTS）對最大攝氧量（VO_(2max)）、羽球敏捷測驗（BAT）、心跳率（HR）、運動自覺努力程度（RPE）以及血乳酸濃度（La）的影響。方法：16位大學羽球校隊運動員隨機分派於實驗處理（高強度羽球步法間歇訓練結合燈號訓練系統）或控制處理（高強度羽球步法間歇訓練未結合燈號訓練系統）進行2週訓練。於訓練前、後測驗VO_(2max)、BAT、HR、RPE和La。結果：2週高強度羽球步法間歇訓練可達到87.9%-91.1%最大心跳率。訓練後，實驗與控制處理之間的VO_(2max)未達顯著差異（p ＞ .05）。然而，實驗處理的後測比前測增加11%（前測vs.後測：40.4 vs. 44.9 ml．kg^(-1)．min^(-1),p ＜ .05），控制處理的後測比前測則增加7%（前測vs.後測：40.5 vs. 43.3 ml．kg^(-1)．min^(-1), p＜ .05）。在羽球敏捷測驗結果，實驗與控制處理在V字型步法（p = .962）、左右步法（p= .666）以及隨機步法（p = .718）表現上未達顯著差異，可是兩種處理在後測的羽球敏捷測驗總時間顯著比前測減少 6.8%（p ＜ .01）。兩種處理在後測的平均心跳率與血乳酸濃度未達顯著差異（p ＞ .05）。然而，兩種處理於後測的運動自覺努力程度皆顯著低於前測（p＜ .05）。結論：兩週高強度羽球步法間歇訓練後，不論是否採用燈號訓練系統，對於大學羽球校隊運動員的有氧表現與敏捷能力的效果相當，因此教練可擇一方式應用於羽球運動員的短期高強度間歇訓練。

Introduction: The percentage of heart rate (HR) applied during high-intensity interval training (HIIT) as well as the reliability of prescribing badminton training intensities on the court remain unknown. The use of sport technology devices is becoming more popular in sports science. These devices also seem to be useful tools for athletic training. However, evidence regarding the benefits of such devices in professional sports training remains limited. Thus, in the present study, the Fitlight trainer system (FTS) was used to investigate the effects of 2-week high-intensity footwork interval training (HFIT) on maximal oxygen uptake (VO_(2max)), badminton agility test (BAT) scores, HR, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and blood lactate concentration (La). Methods: Sixteen university badminton players were randomly assigned to an experiment condition (EC) (HFIT with FTS) or control condition (CC) (HFIT without FTS) for 2 weeks. VO_(2max), BAT, HR, RPE, and La were measured before and after training. Results: The 2-week HFIT elicited 87.9% -91.1% maximal HR in badminton players. No significant difference was revealed in VO_(2max) between EC and CC conditions after training (p ＞ .05). However, EC increased by 11% (pretraining vs. posttraining: 40.4 vs. 44.9 ml．kg^(-1)．min^(-1), p ＜ .05) and CC by 7% (pretraining vs. posttraining: 40.5 vs. 43.3 ml．kg^(-1)．min^(-1), p ＜ .05) in VO_(2max) respectively. Between the EC and CC, BAT performance in V-shape footwork (p = .962), sideline footwork (p = .666), and random footwork (p = .718) were not significantly different. However, total BAT time decreased by 6.8% from pretraining to posttraining for both conditions (p ＜ .01). Mean HR and La were not significantly differences between EC and CC from posttraining (p ＞ .05). However, for both conditions, RPE at posttraining was significantly lower than that at pretraining (p ＜ .05). Conclusion: Two-week HFIT, with or without FTS, had similar benefits for the aerobic and agility performances of players. Thus, coaches may choose one of the two as a HIIT regimen for badminton players.