The effects of recovery duration on physiological and perceptual responses of trained runners during four self-paced HIIT sessions

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

doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2018.09.230

Cited by 31 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1 Previous research showed that trained runners reach a steady state of around 90 -95% VȮ 2 max / HRmax across repeated 4 min work intervals, independent of an increased recovery duration between bouts. 6,9,26,27 Both Smilios et al, 27 and Schoenmakers 9 reported changes in the O 2 and HR kinetics when recovery durations increased (more so, mean response time was faster when intervals started from a lower metabolic rate), resulting in similar time spent ≥ 90% and 95% VȮ 2 max and HRmax between the different recovery durations, suggesting a comparable physiological load of the AIT protocol. 9,27 Increasing the recovery duration from 1 to 4 min did not significantly affect…”

Section: The Recovery Duration During Rst and Sitmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Lastly, a number of studies have used self-selected (SS) recovery durations in HIIT protocols, in which athletes started subsequent work intervals when they felt 'adequately recovered to exercise at the required intensity'. [5][6][7][8][9][10] While a considerable amount of variation was evident in SS recovery durations across different HIIT protocols, and SS recovery time is potentially dependent on maturation status 7,10 (see figure 1), the current understanding is that athletes can adequately select recovery durations to achieve the required exercise intensities in subsequent work intervals in both RST and SIT (see figure 1) and AIT (see figure 2).…”

Section: Characteristics Of All Reviewed Studies Are Summarized In Sumentioning

confidence: 99%

“…28 The shorter recovery intervals in AIT1 induced a lower post exercise PCr content compared with AIT3, however, these larger perturbations in muscle metabolites did not result in greater training adaptations in AIT1 compared with AIT3. 28 Using self-paced AIT protocols, in which work intensities were not predefined but rather determined by the integrative outcome of feedback from external and internal receptors, multiple research groups 5,6,9,26,29 have evaluated running performance across work intervals.…”

Section: The Recovery Duration During 'Aerobic' Interval Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 Conversely, Laurent et al, 26 reported an additional increase in running speed when extra recovery time was available. Schoenmakers et al, 9 reported the highest mean running speed when 6 × 4 min intervals (ran on a curved non-motorized treadmill) were separated by 3 min, compared to 1 min, 2 min or a SS recovery interval. These results overall indicate that adequate recovery will result in the attainment of the desired work intensity within the limits and requirements of a specific protocol, however, the 'optimum' recovery duration, most likely is highly individual and depending on training status.…”

Section: The Recovery Duration During 'Aerobic' Interval Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…22,23 Long recovery intervals in AIT protocols allow athletes to attain higher workloads (speed or power) in successive work bouts when exercise intensities are not fixed, without compromising the overall physiological stimulus of a training session. 6,9,26 When work intensities are fixed in AIT protocols, the same training sessions is typically completed with a lower RPE when longer recovery intervals are available, again, without compromising in the physiological stimulus. [27][28][29] Ultimately, depending on the exercise intensities of work intervals, a recovery interval of 3 min is expected to be sufficient to avoid premature fatigue in AIT protocols.…”

Section: Practical Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Schoenmakers¹,

Hettinga

Reed³

2019

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:Over recent years, multiple studies have tried to optimize the exercise intensity and duration of work intervals in high-intensity-interval training (HIIT) protocols. Although an optimal work interval is of major importance to facilitate training adaptations, an optimal HIIT protocol can only be achieved with an adequate recovery interval separating work bouts. Surprisingly, little research has focused on the acute responses and long-term impact of manipulating recovery intervals in HIIT sessions. This invited commentary therefore aimed to review and discuss the current literature and increase the understanding of the moderating role of recovery durations in HIIT protocols.Conclusion:The acute responses to manipulations in recovery durations in repeated-sprint training (RST), sprint interval training (SIT), and aerobic interval training (AIT) protocols have recently begun to receive scientific interest. However, limited studies have manipulated only the recovery duration in RST, SIT, or AIT protocols to analyze the role of recovery durations on long-term training adaptations. In RST and SIT, longer recovery intervals (≥80 s) facilitate higher workloads in subsequent work intervals (compared with short recovery intervals), while potentially lowering the aerobic stimulus of the training session. In AIT, the total physiological strain endured per training protocol appears not to be moderated by the recovery intervals, unless the recovery duration is too short. This invited commentary highlights that further empirical evidence on a variety of RST, SIT, and AIT protocols and in exercise modalities other than cycling is needed.

show abstract

Section: The Recovery Duration During Rst and Sitmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Characteristics Of All Reviewed Studies Are Summarized In Sumentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Recovery Duration During 'Aerobic' Interval Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Recovery Duration During 'Aerobic' Interval Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Practical Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Schoenmakers¹,

Hettinga

Reed³

2019

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

Active vs. passive recovery during an aerobic interval training session in well-trained runners

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare cardio-metabolic, perceptual and neuromuscular responses to an aerobic interval training (AIT) running session, with active (AR) vs. passive recovery (PR). Methods Eleven well-trained male distance runners (36.63 ± 6.93 years, 59.26 ± 5.27 mL·kg−1·min−1, ⁓ 35 min in 10 km) completed the University of Montréal Track Test (UMTT) and 2 AIT sessions on track in random order, which consisted of 4 × 2 min at 100% of the maximum aerobic speed (MAS), with 2 min of AR at 80% of the velocity associated to the second ventilatory threshold (vVT2), or no exercise (i.e., PR). During sessions, oxygen consumption (V̇O2), heart rate (HR), blood lactate [La], rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and countermovement jump (CMJ) were continuously monitored. Results There were no differences in time spent in the “red zone” (i.e. > 90% V̇O2max) between sessions (222 ± 73 s AR vs. 230 ± 104 s PR, p = 0.588), although the PR exhibited a greater time spent at peak V̇O2 close to significance (117 ± 114 vs. 158 ± 109 s, p = 0.056). However, the AR elicited a higher mean V̇O2 (49.62 ± 5.91 vs. 47.46 ± 4.20 mL·kg−1·min−1, p = 0.021). The AR favored a lower [La] after sessions (6.93 ± 2.22 vs. 6.24 ± 1.93 mmol·L−1, p = 0.016) and a higher RPE during sessions (15 ± 0.45 vs. 14 ± 0.47, p = 0.045). Meanwhile, the CMJ was significantly potentiated during both sessions. Conclusion Considering that PR elicited lower perceptual loading for a similar cardiorespiratory response, its use would be preferable, at least, for this type of AIT running sessions.

show abstract

The effects of recovery duration on physiological and perceptual responses of trained runners during four self-paced HIIT sessions

Abstract: Objectives: This study aimed to examine the effects of different recovery durations on self-selected running velocities, physiological responses, and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) in a commonly used high intensity interval training (HIIT) protocol.

Cited by 31 publications

References 23 publications

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

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

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

Active vs. passive recovery during an aerobic interval training session in well-trained runners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About