PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to evaluate the recovery kinetics of peak power output (PPO) following a maximal sprint, and to evaluate the influence of aerobic fitness on that recovery process. METHODS: On separate occasions, 16 well-trained men (age: 21 ± 3 years; height: 1.84 ± 0.05 m; and body mass: 78.8 ± 7.8 kg) performed a 30 s maximal sprint on a cycle ergometer, followed by a predetermined stationary rest period (5, 10, 20, 40, 80, and 160 s) and a subsequent 5 s sprint to determine PPO recovery kinetics. On another occasion, [Formula: see text] was monitored during recovery from a 30 s sprint to provide a comparison with the recovery of PPO. Finally, subjects completed a [Formula: see text] test to evaluate the influence of aerobic fitness on the recovery of PPO. RESULTS: Despite following similar time courses (F = 0.36, p = 0.558), and being well described by double-exponential models, the kinetic parameters of PPO and [Formula: see text] in recovery were significantly different (p < 0.05). There was no significant relationship (r = 0.15; p = 0.578) between [Formula: see text] and the time to achieve 50 % recovery of PPO. Moreover, there was no difference (p = 0.61) between the recovery kinetics of participants classified according to their [Formula: see text] (59.4 ± 1.3 vs 48.5 ± 2.2 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)). CONCLUSION: Despite similar overall recovery kinetics, [Formula: see text] and PPO show differences in key model parameters. Moreover, the recovery of PPO does not appear to be affected by aerobic fitness.
PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to evaluate the recovery kinetics of peak power output (PPO) following a maximal sprint, and to evaluate the influence of aerobic fitness on that recovery process. METHODS: On separate occasions, 16 well-trained men (age: 21 ± 3 years; height: 1.84 ± 0.05 m; and body mass: 78.8 ± 7.8 kg) performed a 30 s maximal sprint on a cycle ergometer, followed by a predetermined stationary rest period (5, 10, 20, 40, 80, and 160 s) and a subsequent 5 s sprint to determine PPO recovery kinetics. On another occasion, [Formula: see text] was monitored during recovery from a 30 s sprint to provide a comparison with the recovery of PPO. Finally, subjects completed a [Formula: see text] test to evaluate the influence of aerobic fitness on the recovery of PPO. RESULTS: Despite following similar time courses (F = 0.36, p = 0.558), and being well described by double-exponential models, the kinetic parameters of PPO and [Formula: see text] in recovery were significantly different (p < 0.05). There was no significant relationship (r = 0.15; p = 0.578) between [Formula: see text] and the time to achieve 50 % recovery of PPO. Moreover, there was no difference (p = 0.61) between the recovery kinetics of participants classified according to their [Formula: see text] (59.4 ± 1.3 vs 48.5 ± 2.2 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)). CONCLUSION: Despite similar overall recovery kinetics, [Formula: see text] and PPO show differences in key model parameters. Moreover, the recovery of PPO does not appear to be affected by aerobic fitness.
Authors: Mark Glaister; Chad Witmer; Dustin W Clarke; John J Guers; Justin L Heller; Gavin L Moir Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 3.775