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.

No abstract

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.

Tramadol is a potent narcotic analgesic reportedly used in multiple sports to reduce exertional pain and confer a performance advantage. This study sought to identify whether tramadol enhances performance in time trial cycling. Twenty-seven highly trained cyclists were screened for tramadol sensitivity and then attended the laboratory across three visits. Visit 1 identified maximal oxygen uptake, peak power output and gas exchange threshold through a ramp incremental test. Participants returned to the laboratory on two further occasions to undertake cycling performance tests following the ingestion of either 100 mg of soluble tramadol or a taste-matched placebo control in a double-blind, randomised, and crossover design. In the performance tests participants completed a 30 min non-exhaustive fixed intensity cycling task at a Heavy exercise intensity (272 ± 42 W), immediately followed by a competitive self-paced 25-mile time trial (TT). Following removal of two outlier data sets, analysis was completed on n=25. Participants completed the TT significantly faster (d = 0.54, p=0.012) in the tramadol condition (3758 s ± 232 s) compared to the placebo condition (3808 s ± 248 s) and maintained a significantly higher mean power output (+9 W) throughout the TT (ƞp2 = 0.262, p=0.009). Tramadol reduced perception of effort during the fixed intensity trial (p=0.026). The 1.3% faster time in the tramadol condition would be sufficient to change the outcomes of a race and is highly meaningful and pervasive in this cohort of highly trained cyclists. The data from this study suggests that tramadol is a performance enhancing drug.