Active Recovery After High-Intensity Interval-Training Does Not Attenuate Training Adaptation

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.

Blueberry supplementation reduces the blood lactate response to running in normobaric hypoxia but has no effect on performance in recreational runners

Background

Blueberries are concentrated with anthocyanins possessing antioxidant properties. As these properties counter fatigue, blueberry supplementation may improve performance and recovery, particularly in hypoxia, where oxidative stress is elevated.

Methods

This study examined the effects of blueberry supplementation on running performance, physiological responses, and recovery in normobaric hypoxia. Eleven experienced runners completed a 30-minute time-trial (TT) in normobaric hypoxia (%O₂ = 15.5 %) on separate days after supplementation with four days of blueberries (BLU) or four days of placebo (PLA). Heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SaO₂) and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were monitored during the TT. Blood lactate and fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (F_ENO) were assessed pre-TT, post-TT, and during recovery.

Results

No significant differences were observed in the distance run during the TT, HR, SaO₂, and RPE. The post-TT increase in blood lactate was significantly lower in BLU than PLA (p = 0.036). Pre-TT and post-TT F_ENO did not differ between conditions. Blood lactate recovery following the TT was similar between conditions.

Conclusions

Four days of blueberry supplementation did not alter running performance or cardiovascular and perceptual responses in normobaric hypoxia. Supplementation lowered the blood lactate response to running, however, the significance of this finding is uncertain given the absence of an ergogenic effect.

Repeatability of the Individual Response to the Use of Active Recovery the Day After High-Intensity Interval Training: A Double-Crossover Trial

PURPOSE

To identify whether the use of active recovery (ACT) the day after high-intensity interval training (HIIT) benefits recovery and to assess whether individual responses to ACT are repeatable.

METHODS

Eleven well-trained, male intermittent-sport athletes (age: 25.5 ± 1.8 y) completed 4 HIIT sessions, each separated by a 2-week washout period. Of the 4 sessions, 2 were followed by passive recovery (PAS) and 2 by 60 minutes of moderate biking (ACT) 24 hours postexercise in the following sequences: ACT→PAS→ACT→PAS or PAS→ACT→PAS→ACT. Before and after HIIT and after 24 and 48 hours of recovery, maximal voluntary isometric strength (MVIC), countermovement jump height (CMJ), tensiomyographic markers of muscle fatigue (TMG), serum concentration of creatine kinase (CK), muscle soreness (MS), and perceived stress state (PS) were determined.

RESULTS

A 3-way repeated-measure analysis of variance with a triple-nested random effects model revealed a significant (P < .05) fatigue-related time effect of HIIT on markers of fatigue (MVIC↓; CMJ↓; TMG↑; CK↑; MS↑; PS↑). No significant (P > .05) main effect of recovery strategy was detected. In 9 subjects, the individual results revealed inconsistent and nonrepeatable responses to ACT, while a consistent and repeatable positive or negative response to ACT was found in 2 individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

The repeated failure of ACT to limit the severity of fatigue was found both at the group level and with most individuals. However, a small percentage of athletes may be more likely to benefit repeatedly from either ACT or PAS. Therefore, the use of ACT should be individualized.

Do We Need a Cool-Down After Exercise? A Narrative Review of the Psychophysiological Effects and the Effects on Performance, Injuries and the Long-Term Adaptive Response

It is widely believed that an active cool-down is more effective for promoting post-exercise recovery than a passive cool-down involving no activity. However, research on this topic has never been synthesized and it therefore remains largely unknown whether this belief is correct. This review compares the effects of various types of active cool-downs with passive cool-downs on sports performance, injuries, long-term adaptive responses, and psychophysiological markers of post-exercise recovery. An active cool-down is largely ineffective with respect to enhancing same-day and next-day(s) sports performance, but some beneficial effects on next-day(s) performance have been reported. Active cool-downs do not appear to prevent injuries, and preliminary evidence suggests that performing an active cool-down on a regular basis does not attenuate the long-term adaptive response. Active cool-downs accelerate recovery of lactate in blood, but not necessarily in muscle tissue. Performing active cool-downs may partially prevent immune system depression and promote faster recovery of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. However, it is unknown whether this reduces the likelihood of post-exercise illnesses, syncope, and cardiovascular complications. Most evidence indicates that active cool-downs do not significantly reduce muscle soreness, or improve the recovery of indirect markers of muscle damage, neuromuscular contractile properties, musculotendinous stiffness, range of motion, systemic hormonal concentrations, or measures of psychological recovery. It can also interfere with muscle glycogen resynthesis. In summary, based on the empirical evidence currently available, active cool-downs are largely ineffective for improving most psychophysiological markers of post-exercise recovery, but may nevertheless offer some benefits compared with a passive cool-down.