The Moderating Role of Recovery Durations in High-Intensity Interval-Training Protocols

Schoenmakers, Patrick P.J.M.; Hettinga, Florentina J.; Reed, Katherine

doi:10.1123/ijspp.2018-0876

Cited by 20 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The recovery time is an important factor for the similar performance of the protocols since supra-maximum intensities require longer recovery time between work intervals to achieve high performances ( Germano et al, 2019 ). Shorter recovery time after supramaximal intensity sprints seem to have an important impact on neuromuscular fatigue, which impair performance due to the short duration of recovery, not enough to remain at a high intensity ( Schoenmakers et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, shorter recovery time also influenced the ability to restore creatine phosphate (PCr) stocks and myoglobin and skeletal muscle reoxygenation, which would have affected the performance of participants in the H15 protocol ( Zafeiridis et al, 2010 ). Thus, recovery times < 30 seconds seem to impair the organic potential for energy production in subsequent supra-maximal sprints ( Schoenmakers et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there was a significant decrease observed after the H30 protocol. The longer duration of rest at H30 might have favored the rapid removal/use of lactate since 30 seconds seemed to be a time of rest that favored the timing/reuse of this metabolite by body structures ( Saltin et al, 1976 ; Schoenmakers et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Physiological and Performance Impacts After Field Supramaximal High-Intensity Interval Training With Different Work-Recovery Duration

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has numerous external load control variables. The management of these variables makes the physiological responses and performance presented by athletes also modify. The present study aimed to assess the activity of CK and LDH enzymes, performance and metabolic responses caused by two HIIT protocols above the maximum in male recreational runners. Fifteen recreational male runners performed two HIIT protocols in randomized order with multiple conditions: 1) H15 ( n = 15), with a HIIT protocol of 15:15 work-recovery duration, and 2) H30 ( n = 15) with a HIIT protocol of 30:30 work-recovery duration. Both protocols were performed at similar intensity (130% vV̇O 2 max ), one set until voluntary exhaustion. Blood samples were collected and used to capture the levels and activities of blood lactate (BLac: mmol⋅L –1 ), glucose (GLU: mg⋅dL –1 ), creatine kinase (CK: U⋅L –1 ), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH: U⋅L –1 ). BLac and GLU were collected at pre, five, and ten minutes after the H15 and H30 protocols were performed. Blood samples were used to measure the activities of CK and LDH enzymes, which were verified 24 h before and 48 h after the protocols. The distance traveled (m), total time (s), and bouts performed (rep) were also registered. Significant differences between conditions H15 and H30 were observed in the bouts performed ( p = 0.001; ES = 1.19). Several statistical differences were found over time for BLac [pre vs. post 5 (both conditions: p = 0.001), pre vs. post 10 (both conditions: p = 0.001), and post 5 vs. post 10 (H30: p = 0.004)], CK [pre vs. post 24 (H15: p < 0.001; ES = 0.97 and H30: p = 0.001; ES = 0.74) post 24 vs. post 48 (H30: p = 0.03; ES = 0.56)], and LDH [pre vs. post24 (H15: p = 0.008; ES = 1.07 and H30: p = 0.022; ES = 0.85). No statistical differences between conditions were observed for any blood parameter. Thus, the volunteers exhibited equal performance in both protocols, which resulted in a similar physiological response. Despite this similarity, in comparison to H15, the H30 protocol presented lower CK activity post 48 and lactate levels after 10 min post protocol.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Physiological and Performance Impacts After Field Supramaximal High-Intensity Interval Training With Different Work-Recovery Duration

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, optimal work interval performance (accumulating time at effective training intensities i.e. ≥ 90% ), can only be achieved if separated by a correctly programmed recovery interval (Schoenmakers et al 2019 ). Therefore, understanding the effects of altering the recovery interval components on subsequent work interval performance is key when looking to programme an effective HIIT session.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The acute physiological and perceptual effects of recovery interval intensity during cycling-based high-intensity interval training

Fennell

Hopker

2020

Eur J Appl Physiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The current study sought to investigate the role of recovery intensity on the physiological and perceptual responses during cycling-based aerobic high-intensity interval training. Methods Fourteen well-trained cyclists ($$\dot{V}{\text{O}}_{{{\text{2peak}}}}$$ V ˙ O 2peak : 62 ± 9 mL kg−1 min−1) completed seven laboratory visits. At visit 1, the participants’ peak oxygen consumption ($$\dot{V}{\text{O}}_{{{\text{2peak}}}}$$ V ˙ O 2peak ) and lactate thresholds were determined. At visits 2–7, participants completed either a 6 × 4 min or 3 × 8 min high-intensity interval training (HIIT) protocol with one of three recovery intensity prescriptions: passive (PA) recovery, active recovery at 80% of lactate threshold (80A) or active recovery at 110% of lactate threshold (110A). Results The time spent at > 80%, > 90% and > 95% of maximal minute power during the work intervals was significantly increased with PA recovery, when compared to both 80A and 110A, during both HIIT protocols (all P ≤ 0.001). However, recovery intensity had no effect on the time spent at > 90% $$\dot{V}{\text{O}}_{{{\text{2peak}}}}$$ V ˙ O 2peak (P = 0.11) or > 95% $$\dot{V}{\text{O}}_{{{\text{2peak}}}}$$ V ˙ O 2peak (P = 0.50) during the work intervals of both HIIT protocols. Session RPE was significantly higher following the 110A recovery, when compared to the PA and 80A recovery during both HIIT protocols (P < 0.001). Conclusion Passive recovery facilitates a higher work interval PO and similar internal stress for a lower sRPE when compared to active recovery and therefore may be the efficacious recovery intensity prescription.

show abstract

“…Previous researchers investigating the acute effects of recovery interval duration have predominantly used fixed recovery durations and/or work recovery ratios (i.e. 1:1 or 2:1) to prescribe recovery interval duration [3][4][5][6][7] . While fixed durations and work recovery ratios might be the most common and practical approach to prescribing recovery interval duration, it is based upon the assumption that every individual requires the same recovery duration during HIIT sessions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Acute Physiological and Perceptual Effects of Individualizing the Recovery Interval Duration Based Upon the Resolution of Muscle Oxygen Consumption During Cycling Exercise

Fennell¹,

Hopker²

2021

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: There has been paucity in research investigating the individualization of recovery interval duration during cycling-based high-intensity interval training (HIIT). The main aim of the study was to investigate whether individualizing the duration of the recovery interval based upon the resolution of muscle oxygen consumption would improve the performance during work intervals and the acute physiological response of the HIIT session, when compared with a standardized (2:1 work recovery ratio) approach. Methods: A total of 16 well-trained cyclists (maximal oxygen consumption: 60 [7] mL·kg−1·min−1) completed 6 laboratory visits: (Visit 1) incremental exercise test, (Visit 2) determination of the individualized (IND) recovery duration, using the individuals’ muscle oxygen consumption recovery duration to baseline from a 4- and 8-minute work interval, (Visits 3–6) participants completed a 6 × 4- and a 3 × 8-minute HIIT session twice, using the IND and standardized recovery intervals. Results: Recovery duration had no effect on the percentage of the work intervals spent at >90% and >95% of maximal oxygen consumption, maximal minute power output, and maximal heart rate, during the 6 × 4- and 3 × 8-minute HIIT sessions. Recovery duration had no effect on mean work interval power output, heart rate, oxygen consumption, blood lactate, and rating of perceived exertion. There were no differences in reported session RPE between recovery durations for the 6 × 4- and 3 × 8-minute HIIT sessions. Conclusion: Individualizing HIIT recovery duration based upon the resolution of muscle oxygen consumption to baseline levels does not improve the performance of the work intervals or the acute physiological response of the HIIT session, when compared with standardized recovery duration.

show abstract

The Moderating Role of Recovery Durations in High-Intensity Interval-Training Protocols

Cited by 20 publications

References 29 publications

Physiological and Performance Impacts After Field Supramaximal High-Intensity Interval Training With Different Work-Recovery Duration

Physiological and Performance Impacts After Field Supramaximal High-Intensity Interval Training With Different Work-Recovery Duration

The acute physiological and perceptual effects of recovery interval intensity during cycling-based high-intensity interval training

The Acute Physiological and Perceptual Effects of Individualizing the Recovery Interval Duration Based Upon the Resolution of Muscle Oxygen Consumption During Cycling Exercise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About