Randomized trial investigates how different high-intensity running protocols affect neuromuscular fatigue and perceived fatigue in males, suggesting exercise protocol shapes recovery outcomes.
This study investigated neuromuscular fatigue and perceived fatigability across different high‐intensity endurance running protocols. Twelve males (mean ± SD; : 52.2 ± 6.9 mL/kg/min) ran ∼8.0 km: (i) at the velocity associated to the respiratory compensation point (vRCP; 5 × 8 min bouts ‒ RUN 100%RCP ); (ii) at 30% above vRCP (10 × 3 min bouts ‒ RUN 130%RCP ); and (iii) at 50% above vRCP (20 × 80 s bouts ‒ RUN 150%RCP ). Before and for 6 h post‐exercise, voluntary and evoked contractions of knee‐extensors were assessed, alongside tiredness, leg pain, and perceived recovery. Following all protocols, voluntary activation remained depressed for up to 4 h post‐exercise, while voluntary peak force was reduced for at least 6 h ( p < 0.05). Other neuromuscular function markers reduced ( p < 0.05) according to the protocol. No time × protocol interaction was observed for any neuromuscular function marker ( p > 0.05). Aggregate data (protocol effect, p < 0.05) evidenced greater reduction in neural drive to vastus lateralis (RMS VL /Mw amp ) after RUN 100%RCP (−20%) compared to RUN 130%RCP (−3%) and RUN 150%RCP (−7%); and greater reduction in late rate of force development (RFD; 100–200 ms) and contractile function (Qtw pot ) after RUN 150%RCP (−18% and −8%, respectively) than RUN 100%RCP (−8% and −2%, respectively). Leg pain and tiredness remained elevated ( p < 0.05) for at least 6 h following all protocols. Leg pain and tiredness were greater for up to 4 h and for at least 6 h, respectively, after RUN 150%RCP than RUN 100%RCP (time × protocol interaction; p < 0.05). The choice of exercise protocol influences the extent of reduction in vastus lateralis neural drive, impairments in knee‐extensors contractile function, and perceived fatigability for hours following a high‐intensity endurance running.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dutra et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: