PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of an active and a passive recovery protocol on physiological responses and performance between 2 heats in sprint cross-country skiing. METHODS:Ten elite male skiers (22±3 y, 184±4 cm, 79±7 kg) undertook 2 experimental test sessions that both consisted of 2 heats with 25 min between start of the first and second heats. The heats were conducted as an 800-m time trial (6°, >3.5 m/s, ~205 s) and included measurements of oxygen uptake (VO2) and accumulated oxygen deficit. The active recovery trial involved 2 min standing/walking, 16 min jogging (58%±5% of VO2peak), and 3 min standing/walking. The passive recovery trial involved 15 min sitting, 3 min walk/jog (~30% of VO2peak), and 3 min standing/walking. Blood lactate concentration and heart rate were monitored throughout the recovery periods. RESULTS: The increased 800-m time between heat 1 and heat 2 was trivial after active recovery (effect size [ES]=0.1, P=.64) and small after passive recovery (ES=0.4, P=.14). The 1.2%±2.1% (mean±90% CL) difference between protocols was not significant (ES=0.3, P=.3). In heat 2, peak and average VO2 was increased after the active recovery protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Neither passive recovery nor running at ~58% of VO2peak between 2 heats changed performance significantly.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of an active and a passive recovery protocol on physiological responses and performance between 2 heats in sprint cross-country skiing. METHODS: Ten elite male skiers (22±3 y, 184±4 cm, 79±7 kg) undertook 2 experimental test sessions that both consisted of 2 heats with 25 min between start of the first and second heats. The heats were conducted as an 800-m time trial (6°, >3.5 m/s, ~205 s) and included measurements of oxygen uptake (VO2) and accumulated oxygen deficit. The active recovery trial involved 2 min standing/walking, 16 min jogging (58%±5% of VO2peak), and 3 min standing/walking. The passive recovery trial involved 15 min sitting, 3 min walk/jog (~30% of VO2peak), and 3 min standing/walking. Blood lactate concentration and heart rate were monitored throughout the recovery periods. RESULTS: The increased 800-m time between heat 1 and heat 2 was trivial after active recovery (effect size [ES]=0.1, P=.64) and small after passive recovery (ES=0.4, P=.14). The 1.2%±2.1% (mean±90% CL) difference between protocols was not significant (ES=0.3, P=.3). In heat 2, peak and average VO2 was increased after the active recovery protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Neither passive recovery nor running at ~58% of VO2peak between 2 heats changed performance significantly.
Authors: Kim Hébert-Losier; Christoph Zinner; Simon Platt; Thomas Stöggl; Hans-Christer Holmberg Journal: Sports Med Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 11.136