Why the study?
Does self-selected recovery duration during HIIT improve performance and alter physiological responses compared to externally regulated recovery in recreationally active males?
Does self-selected recovery duration during HIIT improve performance and alter physiological responses compared to externally regulated recovery in recreationally active males?
Self-selected recovery during HIIT allows for better maintenance of target running intensity despite reducing the total time spent at near-maximal heart rates.
SS recovery may reduce high-HR time yet increase supra-MAS duration in HIIT; leaves open optimal recovery prescription.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McEwan et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: