Effect of active versus passive recovery on performance-related outcome during high-intensity interval exercise

Effects of Passive or Active Recovery Regimes Applied During Long-Term Interval Training on Physical Fitness in Healthy Trained and Untrained Individuals: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Intermittent exercise programs characterized through intensive exercise bouts alternated with passive or active recovery (i.e., interval training), have been proven to enhance measures of cardiorespiratory fitness. However, it is unresolved which recovery type (active or passive) applied during interval training results in larger performance improvements.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to summarize recent evidence on the effects of passive or active recovery following long-term interval exercise training on measures of physical fitness and physiological adaptations in healthy trained and untrained individuals. The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9BUEY ).

METHODS

We searched nine databases including the grey literature (Academic Search Elite, CINAHL, ERIC, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, Open Dissertations, PsycINFO, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus) from inception until February 2023. Key terms as high-intensity interval training, recovery mode, passive or active recover were used. A systematic review rather than a meta-analysis was performed, as a large number of outcome parameters would have produced substantial heterogeneity.

RESULTS

After screening titles, abstracts, and full texts, 24 studies were eligible for inclusion in our final analysis. Thirteen studies examined the effects of interval training interspersed with passive recovery regimes on physical fitness and physiological responses in trained (6 studies) and untrained (7 studies) individuals. Eleven out of 13 studies reported significant improvements in physical fitness (e.g., maximal aerobic velocity (MAV), Yo-Yo running test, jump performance) and physiological parameters (e.g., maximal oxygen uptake [VO2max], lactate threshold, blood pressure) in trained (effect sizes from single studies: 0.13 < Cohen's d < 3.27, small to very large) and untrained individuals (effect sizes: 0.17 < d < 4.19, small to very large) despite the type of interval training or exercise dosage (frequency, intensity, time, type). Two studies were identified that examined the effects of passive recovery applied during interval training in young female basketball (15.1 ± 1.1 years) and male soccer players (14.2 ± 0.5 years). Both studies showed positive effects of passive recovery on VO2max, countermovement jump performance, and the Yo-Yo running test. Eleven studies examined the effects of interval training interspersed with active recovery methods on physical fitness and physiological parameters in trained (6 studies) and untrained individuals (5 studies). Despite the type of interval training or exercise dosage, nine out of eleven studies reported significant increases in measures of physical fitness (e.g., MAV) and physiological parameters (e.g., VO2max, blood pressures) in trained (effect sizes from single studies: 0.13 < d < 1.29, small to very large) and untrained individuals (effect sizes: 0.19 < d < 3.29, small to very large). There was no study available that examined the effects of active recovery on physical fitness and physiological responses in youth.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review show that interval training interspersed with active or passive recovery regimes have the potential to improve measures of physical fitness and physiology outcomes in trained and untrained adults and trained youth. That is, the applied recovery type seems not to affect the outcomes. Nonetheless, more research is needed on the effects of recovery type on measures of physical fitness and physiological adaptations in youth.

Influence of Recovery Mode on the Maximum Number of Intervals Until Exhaustion During an Aerobic Interval Training Session

ABSTRACT

Varela-Sanz, A, Sánchez-Otero, T, Tuimil, JL, Boullosa, D, and Iglesias-Soler, E. Influence of recovery mode on the maximum number of intervals until exhaustion during an aerobic interval training session. J Strength Cond Res 37(9): e510-e520, 2023-We analyzed work capacity, cardiometabolic, perceptual, and neuromuscular responses to an aerobic interval training (AIT) running session until exhaustion, with active (AR) vs. passive recovery (PR). Eight well-trained male endurance runners (36.88 ± 7.14 years, 58.22 ± 3.39 ml·kg -1 ·minute -1 ) randomly completed, after familiarizations and the University of Montreal Track Test (UMTT), 2 AIT track running sessions until exhaustion consisting in 2-minute bouts at 100% of maximum aerobic speed (MAS), with 2 minutes of recovery at 80% of the velocity associated to the second ventilatory threshold (vVT 2 ) (i.e., AR), or no exercise (i.e., PR). Oxygen consumption (V̇O 2 ), heart rate (HR), blood lactate [La], rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and countermovement jump (CMJ) were continuously monitored during sessions. The level of statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. PR resulted in longer time to exhaustion during sessions (13.9 vs. 11.6 bouts, p = 0.045), but lower HR ( p < 0.01) when compared with AR. Time spent over 90% of maximum oxygen consumption (V̇O 2max ), blood lactate concentrations, neuromuscular performance, and RPE did not differ between AR and PR ( p > 0.05). Thus, PR allowed runners to perform more work intervals and, therefore, to accumulate a greater volume. On the other hand, when training goals are focused on reaching a higher chronotropic stress (i.e., higher HR) during the training session, athletes would obtain more benefits from AR. This study also demonstrates that the current volume recommendations for AIT are far below (54-64.5%) the maximum training capacity of well-trained runners.

Active vs. passive recovery during an aerobic interval training session in well-trained runners

Purpose

To compare cardio-metabolic, perceptual and neuromuscular responses to an aerobic interval training (AIT) running session, with active (AR) vs. passive recovery (PR).

Methods

Eleven well-trained male distance runners (36.63 ± 6.93 years, 59.26 ± 5.27 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹, ⁓ 35 min in 10 km) completed the University of Montréal Track Test (UMTT) and 2 AIT sessions on track in random order, which consisted of 4 × 2 min at 100% of the maximum aerobic speed (MAS), with 2 min of AR at 80% of the velocity associated to the second ventilatory threshold (vVT₂), or no exercise (i.e., PR). During sessions, oxygen consumption (V̇O₂), heart rate (HR), blood lactate [La], rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and countermovement jump (CMJ) were continuously monitored.

Results

There were no differences in time spent in the “red zone” (i.e. > 90% V̇O_2max) between sessions (222 ± 73 s AR vs. 230 ± 104 s PR, p = 0.588), although the PR exhibited a greater time spent at peak V̇O₂ close to significance (117 ± 114 vs. 158 ± 109 s, p = 0.056). However, the AR elicited a higher mean V̇O₂ (49.62 ± 5.91 vs. 47.46 ± 4.20 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹, p = 0.021). The AR favored a lower [La] after sessions (6.93 ± 2.22 vs. 6.24 ± 1.93 mmol·L⁻¹, p = 0.016) and a higher RPE during sessions (15 ± 0.45 vs. 14 ± 0.47, p = 0.045). Meanwhile, the CMJ was significantly potentiated during both sessions.

Conclusion

Considering that PR elicited lower perceptual loading for a similar cardiorespiratory response, its use would be preferable, at least, for this type of AIT running sessions.