Key result
Passive recovery optimized repeated sprint performance for short rest periods (45s; 12.0 vs 11.4 W/kg, p≤0.05), while active recovery was better for longer durations (180s; 12.7 vs 12.0 W/kg, p≤0.05).
Why the study?
Does active recovery compared to passive recovery improve subsequent repeated short sprint performance in male recreational athletes?
RCT (n=10)
randomized
Does active recovery compared to passive recovery improve subsequent repeated short sprint performance in male recreational athletes?
p-value: p=≤0.05
Passive recovery optimizes subsequent repeated short sprint performance when rest periods are short (45s), whereas active recovery is beneficial when rest periods are longer (180s).
Tailor recovery to rest duration in repeated sprints; extends evidence on active versus passive protocols in athletes.
The aim of this study was to examine the interactive effects of recovery mode and duration on subsequent repeated short sprint (RSS) performance. Ten male recreational athletes (age, 27.9 ± 5.0 years; height, 1.80 ± 0.07 m; mass, 81.6 ± 13.5 kg) performed 4 randomized trials consisting of a 30-second cycle sprint, followed by a specified recovery period (45 or 180 seconds), and a subsequent set of RSS (7 × 5 seconds, 20-second passive rest periods). Recovery mode was either active (AR; 70% of the power output at lactate threshold) or passive (PR). Mean heart rate and V[Combining Dot Above]O2 were significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) in AR than in PR over both recovery durations. Although the difference in V[Combining Dot Above]O2 reached significance after 10-15 seconds, a significant (p ≤ 0.05) difference in heart rate was observed only after 26 seconds (45-second trials) - 75 seconds (180-second trials). Blood lactate was significantly (p ≤ 0.05) lower in AR than in PR only after 135 seconds (mean difference, 2.16 mmol·L; 95% likely range, 0.77-3.55 mmol·L). Mean peak power output in the RSS test was significantly (p ≤ 0.05) higher following PR45 than AR45 (12.0 ± 1.4 vs. 11.4 ± 1.4 W·kg) and following AR180 than PR180 (12.7 ± 1.2 vs. 12.0 ± 1.2 W·kg). In conclusion, when rest periods are short, a PR strategy appears to optimize subsequent RSS performance. However, as the recovery duration increases subsequent RSS performance appears to benefit from an AR strategy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brown et al. (2013) conducted an RCT in Recreational athletes (n=10). Active recovery vs. Passive recovery was evaluated on Mean peak power output in the subsequent repeated short sprint (RSS) test (p=≤0.05). Passive recovery optimized repeated sprint performance for short rest periods (45s; 12.0 vs 11.4 W/kg, p≤0.05), while active recovery was better for longer durations (180s; 12.7 vs 12.0 W/kg, p≤0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: