Why the study?
To analyze work capacity, cardiometabolic, perceptual, and neuromuscular responses to an aerobic interval training running session until exhaustion with active versus passive recovery.
Does active recovery compared to passive recovery affect the maximum number of intervals until exhaustion during an aerobic interval training session in well-trained male endurance runners?
Does active recovery compared to passive recovery affect the maximum number of intervals until exhaustion during an aerobic interval training session in well-trained male endurance runners?
Passive recovery during aerobic interval training allows well-trained runners to perform more work intervals compared to active recovery, though active recovery induces higher chronotropic stress.
Passive recovery enables more intervals before exhaustion in endurance runners; confirms its advantage over active recovery for maximizing session volume.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Varela-Sanz et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: