PURPOSE: To compare active versus passive recovery on performance and metabolism during a test of repeated-sprint ability. METHODS: Nine males performed four repeated-sprint cycle tests (six 4-s sprints, every 25 s) in a randomized, counterbalanced order: two tests with active recovery (approximately 32\% VO2max) and two with passive recovery. Muscle biopsies were taken during the four tests from the vastus lateralis pretest, immediately posttest, and following 21 s of recovery to determine phosphocreatine ([PCr]), creatine, and muscle lactate concentration ([MLa]). RESULTS: Active recovery resulted in a greater power decrement than passive recovery (7.4 +/- 2.2 vs 5.6 +/- 1.8\%, P = 0.01) and lower final peak power (14.9 +/- 1.5 vs 15.3 +/- 1.5 W.kg(-1), P = 0.02). However, there was no significant difference in work decrement or total work. The percent of resting [PCr] was lower and approached significance posttest (32.6 +/- 10.6 vs 45.3 +/- 18.6\%; P = 0.06; effect size (ES) = 0.8) and following 21 s of recovery (54.6 +/- 9.6 vs 71.7 +/- 14.1\%; P = 0.06; ES = 1.2) during active recovery. The [MLa] was significantly higher posttest during active recovery (71.7 +/- 12.3 vs 55.2 +/- 15.7 mmol.kg(-1)dm; P = 0.048; ES = 1.2); however, no significant differences were evident following 21 s of recovery (55.0 +/- 11.3 vs 48.4 +/- 16.7 mmol.kg(-1)dm, P = 0.07; ES = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Despite no differences in the majority of performance measures, active recovery resulted in a significantly lower final peak power, a greater peak power decrement, a higher [MLa], and a strong trend towards lower [PCr], suggesting a potential suboptimal effect of active recovery during repeated-sprint exercise.
Metabolism and performance in repeated cycle sprints: active versus passive recovery
BISHOP, DAVID JOHN;
2006-01-01
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare active versus passive recovery on performance and metabolism during a test of repeated-sprint ability. METHODS: Nine males performed four repeated-sprint cycle tests (six 4-s sprints, every 25 s) in a randomized, counterbalanced order: two tests with active recovery (approximately 32\% VO2max) and two with passive recovery. Muscle biopsies were taken during the four tests from the vastus lateralis pretest, immediately posttest, and following 21 s of recovery to determine phosphocreatine ([PCr]), creatine, and muscle lactate concentration ([MLa]). RESULTS: Active recovery resulted in a greater power decrement than passive recovery (7.4 +/- 2.2 vs 5.6 +/- 1.8\%, P = 0.01) and lower final peak power (14.9 +/- 1.5 vs 15.3 +/- 1.5 W.kg(-1), P = 0.02). However, there was no significant difference in work decrement or total work. The percent of resting [PCr] was lower and approached significance posttest (32.6 +/- 10.6 vs 45.3 +/- 18.6\%; P = 0.06; effect size (ES) = 0.8) and following 21 s of recovery (54.6 +/- 9.6 vs 71.7 +/- 14.1\%; P = 0.06; ES = 1.2) during active recovery. The [MLa] was significantly higher posttest during active recovery (71.7 +/- 12.3 vs 55.2 +/- 15.7 mmol.kg(-1)dm; P = 0.048; ES = 1.2); however, no significant differences were evident following 21 s of recovery (55.0 +/- 11.3 vs 48.4 +/- 16.7 mmol.kg(-1)dm, P = 0.07; ES = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Despite no differences in the majority of performance measures, active recovery resulted in a significantly lower final peak power, a greater peak power decrement, a higher [MLa], and a strong trend towards lower [PCr], suggesting a potential suboptimal effect of active recovery during repeated-sprint exercise.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
