Overestimation of required recovery time during repeated sprint exercise with self-regulated recovery

The Validity of Perceptual Recovery Status on Monitoring Recovery During a High-Intensity Back-Squat Session

Adaptations to resistance training and subsequent performance can be undermined by inadequate interset recovery. Methods typically used to monitor recovery were developed for longitudinal use, making them time-inefficient within singular exercise bouts. If valid, perceptual recovery status (PRS) may be used as an efficient and inexpensive assessment tool to monitor individual recovery.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the validity of PRS on monitoring recovery during a high-intensity back-squat session.

METHODS

Ten healthy men participated in the 2-session study (separated by at least 48 h). Session 1 included anthropometrics, PRS familiarization, and a 1-repetition-maximum back squat. Session 2 included a high-intensity protocol (5 sets of 5 repetitions; 5-min interset recovery; 85% of 1-repetition maximum). PRS was obtained before the first set and during the last 30 seconds of each 5-minute recovery; rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was also collected. A linear position transducer collected mean barbell velocity (MBV). Repeated-measures correlations assessed the common intraindividual relationships of PRS scores to intraset MBV and RPE, respectively.

RESULTS

A very large, positive correlation appeared between PRS and MBV (r [95% CI] = .778 [.613 to .878]; P < .0001). A large, negative correlation emerged between PRS and RPE (r [95% CI] = -.549 [-.737 to -.282]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that PRS can be a means for practitioners to monitor individualized recovery. PRS tracked well with RPE, strengthening its utility in a practitioner-based setting. Findings provide insight into the practicality of PRS for recovery monitoring. It could be used alongside other measures (eg, MBV and countermovement jump) to individually program and maintain performance.

The Acute Physiological and Perceptual Effects of Individualizing the Recovery Interval Duration Based Upon the Resolution of Muscle Oxygen Consumption During Cycling Exercise

PURPOSE

There has been paucity in research investigating the individualization of recovery interval duration during cycling-based high-intensity interval training (HIIT). The main aim of the study was to investigate whether individualizing the duration of the recovery interval based upon the resolution of muscle oxygen consumption would improve the performance during work intervals and the acute physiological response of the HIIT session, when compared with a standardized (2:1 work recovery ratio) approach.

METHODS

A total of 16 well-trained cyclists (maximal oxygen consumption: 60 [7] mL·kg-1·min-1) completed 6 laboratory visits: (Visit 1) incremental exercise test, (Visit 2) determination of the individualized (IND) recovery duration, using the individuals' muscle oxygen consumption recovery duration to baseline from a 4- and 8-minute work interval, (Visits 3-6) participants completed a 6 × 4- and a 3 × 8-minute HIIT session twice, using the IND and standardized recovery intervals.

RESULTS

Recovery duration had no effect on the percentage of the work intervals spent at >90% and >95% of maximal oxygen consumption, maximal minute power output, and maximal heart rate, during the 6 × 4- and 3 × 8-minute HIIT sessions. Recovery duration had no effect on mean work interval power output, heart rate, oxygen consumption, blood lactate, and rating of perceived exertion. There were no differences in reported session RPE between recovery durations for the 6 × 4- and 3 × 8-minute HIIT sessions.

CONCLUSION

Individualizing HIIT recovery duration based upon the resolution of muscle oxygen consumption to baseline levels does not improve the performance of the work intervals or the acute physiological response of the HIIT session, when compared with standardized recovery duration.

The Effect of Maturation on Performance During Repeated Sprints With Self-Selected Versus Standardized Recovery Intervals in Youth Footballers

PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to assess performance during repeated sprints utilizing self-selected recovery intervals in youth football (soccer) players at different stages of maturation.

METHODS

Quota sampling method was used to recruit 14 prepeak height velocity (PHV) and 14 post-PHV participants for the study (N = 28; age = 13 [0.9] y, stature = 162.5 [10.8] cm, mass = 50.2 [12.7] kg). Players performed repeated sprints comprising 10 × 30 m efforts under 2 experimental conditions: using 30-second and self-selected recovery intervals. Magnitude of effects for within- and between-group differences were reported using effect size (ES) statistics ± 90% confidence intervals and percentage differences.

RESULTS

The decline in sprint performance was likely lower in the pre-PHV compared with the post-PHV group during the standardized recovery trial (between-group difference = 37%; ES = 0.41 ± 0.51), and likely lower in the post-PHV group during the self-selected recovery trial (between-group difference = 50%; ES = 0.45 ± 0.54). Mean recovery duration was likely shorter in the pre-PHV compared with the post-PHV group during the self-selected recovery trial (between-group difference = 26.1%; ES = 0.47 ± 0.45).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to show that during repeated sprints with self-selected recovery, pre-PHV children have an impaired ability to accurately interpret physical capabilities in the context of the task compared with post-PHV adolescents.

Interval running with self-selected recovery: Physiology, performance, and perception

This study (1) compared the physiological responses and performance during a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) session incorporating externally regulated (ER) and self-selected (SS) recovery periods and (2) examined the psychophysiological cues underpinning SS recovery durations. Following an incremental maximal exercise test to determine maximal aerobic speed (MAS), 14 recreationally active males completed 2 HIIT sessions on a non-motorised treadmill. Participants performed 12 × 30 s running intervals at a target intensity of 105% MAS interspersed with 30 s (ER) or SS recovery periods. During SS, participants were instructed to provide themselves with sufficient recovery to complete all 12 efforts at the required intensity. A semi-structured interview was undertaken following the completion of SS. Mean recovery duration was longer during SS (51 ± 15 s) compared to ER (30 ± 0 s; p < .001; d = 1.46 ± 0.46). Between-interval heart rate recovery was higher (SS: 19 ± 9 b min^-1; ER: 8 ± 5 b min^-1; p < .001; d = 1.43 ± 0.43) and absolute time ≥90% maximal heart rate (HR_max) was lower (SS: 335 ± 193 s; ER: 433 ± 147 s; p = .075; d = 0.52 ± 0.39) during SS compared to ER. Relative time ≥105% MAS was greater during SS (90 ± 6%) compared to ER (74 ± 20%; p < .01; d = 0.87 ± 0.40). Different sources of afferent information underpinned decision-making during SS. The extended durations of recovery during SS resulted in a reduced time ≥90% HR_max but enhanced time ≥105% MAS, compared with ER exercise. Differences in the afferent cue utilisation of participants likely explain the large levels of inter-individual variability observed.