Christopher R J Fennell1, James G Hopker2. 1. School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Kent at Medway, Medway Building, Kent, Chatham, ME4 4AG, England, UK. 2. School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Kent at Medway, Medway Building, Kent, Chatham, ME4 4AG, England, UK. J.G.Hopker@kent.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The current study sought to investigate the role of recovery intensity on the physiological and perceptual responses during cycling-based aerobic high-intensity interval training. METHODS: Fourteen well-trained cyclists ([Formula: see text]: 62 ± 9 mL kg-1 min-1) completed seven laboratory visits. At visit 1, the participants' peak oxygen consumption ([Formula: see text]) and lactate thresholds were determined. At visits 2-7, participants completed either a 6 × 4 min or 3 × 8 min high-intensity interval training (HIIT) protocol with one of three recovery intensity prescriptions: passive (PA) recovery, active recovery at 80% of lactate threshold (80A) or active recovery at 110% of lactate threshold (110A). RESULTS: The time spent at > 80%, > 90% and > 95% of maximal minute power during the work intervals was significantly increased with PA recovery, when compared to both 80A and 110A, during both HIIT protocols (all P ≤ 0.001). However, recovery intensity had no effect on the time spent at > 90% [Formula: see text] (P = 0.11) or > 95% [Formula: see text] (P = 0.50) during the work intervals of both HIIT protocols. Session RPE was significantly higher following the 110A recovery, when compared to the PA and 80A recovery during both HIIT protocols (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Passive recovery facilitates a higher work interval PO and similar internal stress for a lower sRPE when compared to active recovery and therefore may be the efficacious recovery intensity prescription.
PURPOSE: The current study sought to investigate the role of recovery intensity on the physiological and perceptual responses during cycling-based aerobic high-intensity interval training. METHODS: Fourteen well-trained cyclists ([Formula: see text]: 62 ± 9 mL kg-1 min-1) completed seven laboratory visits. At visit 1, the participants' peak oxygen consumption ([Formula: see text]) and lactate thresholds were determined. At visits 2-7, participants completed either a 6 × 4 min or 3 × 8 min high-intensity interval training (HIIT) protocol with one of three recovery intensity prescriptions: passive (PA) recovery, active recovery at 80% of lactate threshold (80A) or active recovery at 110% of lactate threshold (110A). RESULTS: The time spent at > 80%, > 90% and > 95% of maximal minute power during the work intervals was significantly increased with PA recovery, when compared to both 80A and 110A, during both HIIT protocols (all P ≤ 0.001). However, recovery intensity had no effect on the time spent at > 90% [Formula: see text] (P = 0.11) or > 95% [Formula: see text] (P = 0.50) during the work intervals of both HIIT protocols. Session RPE was significantly higher following the 110A recovery, when compared to the PA and 80A recovery during both HIIT protocols (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION:Passive recovery facilitates a higher work interval PO and similar internal stress for a lower sRPE when compared to active recovery and therefore may be the efficacious recovery intensity prescription.
Authors: Kevin De Pauw; Bart Roelands; Stephen S Cheung; Bas de Geus; Gerard Rietjens; Romain Meeusen Journal: Int J Sports Physiol Perform Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.010