ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The common training practice of active recovery, using low intensity of exercise, is often applied during the interval between repeated exercise bouts and following training sessions with the intention to promote the restoration of muscle metabolism and hasten the recovery of performance. The purpose of this chapter is to address the metabolic limitations concerning the use of active recovery during and after training sessions of high or maximum intensity. Although there is a consensus concerning the faster lactate removal after active recovery, there is no clear evidence concerning the effect of this practice on performance. This is probably attributed to different exercise modes and experimental protocols that have been used to examine the effectiveness of active compared to passive recovery. Active compared to passive recovery increases performance in long duration sprints (15 to 30 s and 40 to 120 s) interspaced with long duration intervals (i.e., exercise to rest ratio 1:8 to 1:15), but this is less likely after short duration repeated sprints (4 to 15 s) interspaced with relatively short rest intervals (i.e., exercise to rest ratio of 1:5). The duration or the intensity, and possibly the mode of exercise, may be critical factors affecting performance after active recovery as compared to passive recovery. This in turn affects the energy systems contributing to the exercise bout that follows. It is likely that active compared to passive recovery, following long duration sprints, creates a beneficial intramuscular environment due to a faster restoration of acidbase balance within the muscle cell. However, the oxygen dependent PCr resynthesis may be impaired by active recovery when it is applied between short duration sprints and especially when the recovery interval is short. Furthermore, the intensity of active recovery can also be crucial for an effective performance outcome. Low intensity should be used for short duration sprints whereas the intensity at the "lactate threshold" may be more appropriate between long duration sprints. In addition, active compared to passive recovery applied immediately after high intensity training may help to maintain performance during the next training session. Coaches should be aware of the above limitations when using active recovery to improve the effectiveness of training.
Content may be subject to copyright.
N
S
P
Savvas P.Tokmakidis
Argyris G.Toubekis
Ilias Smilios
ACTIVE VERSUS PASSIVE RECOVERY:
METABOLIC LIMITATIONS AND
PERFORMANCE OUTCOME
In: "Physical Fitness: Training, Effects and
Maintaining"
Editor: Mark A. Powell
ISBN: 978-1-61728-672-8 2011
400 Oser Avenue, Suite 1600
Hauppauge, N. Y. 11788-3619
Phone (631) 231-7269
Fax (631) 231-8175
E-mail: main@novapublishers.com
http://www.novapublishers.com
Science Publishers, Inc.
NOVA
In: Physical Fitness: Training, Effects and ISBN: 978-1-61728-672-8
Editor: Mark A. Powell © 2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 1
ACTIVE VERSUS PASSIVE RECOVERY:
METABOLIC LIMITATIONS AND
PERFORMANCE OUTCOME
Savvas P.Tokmakidis1, Argyris G.Toubekis2
and Ilias Smilios1
1DemocritusUniversity of Thrace, Department of Physical Education and
Sports Science, Komotini,Greece
2KapodistrianUniversity of Athens, Faculty of Physical Education and
Sports Science, Athens, Greece
ABSTRACT
The common training practice of active recovery, using low intensity
of exercise, is often applied during the interval between repeated exercise
bouts and following training sessions with the intention to promote the
restoration of muscle metabolism and hasten the recovery of
performance. The purpose of this chapter is to address the metabolic
limitations concerning the use of active recovery during and after training
sessions of high or maximum intensity. Although there is a consensus
concerning the faster lactate removal after active recovery, there is no
clear evidence concerning the effect of this practice on performance. This
is probably attributed to different exercise modes and experimental
protocols that have been used to examine the effectiveness of active
compared to passive recovery. Active compared to passive recovery
The exclusive license for this PDF is limited to personal website use only. No part of this digital document
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted commercially in any form or by any means.
The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed
or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is
assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained
herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.
Savvas P. Tokmakidis, Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
2
increases performance in long duration sprints (15 to 30 s and 40 to 120
s) interspaced with long duration intervals (i.e., exercise to rest ratio 1:8
to 1:15), but this is less likely after short duration repeated sprints (4 to 15
s) interspaced with relatively short rest intervals (i.e., exercise to rest ratio
of 1:5). The duration or the intensity, and possibly the mode of exercise,
may be critical factors affecting performance after active recovery as
compared to passive recovery. This in turn affects the energy systems
contributing to the exercise bout that follows. It is likely that active
compared to passive recovery, following long duration sprints, creates a
beneficial intramuscular environment due to a faster restoration of acid-
base balance within the muscle cell. However, the oxygen dependent PCr
resynthesis may be impaired by active recovery when it is applied
between short duration sprints and especially when the recovery interval
is short. Furthermore, the intensity of active recovery can also be crucial
for an effective performance outcome. Low intensity should be used for
short duration sprints whereas the intensity at the “lactate threshold” may
be more appropriate between long duration sprints. In addition, active
compared to passive recovery applied immediately after high intensity
training may help to maintain performance during the next training
session. Coaches should be aware of the above limitations when using
active recovery to improve the effectiveness of training.
INTRODUCTION
Training sessions using repeated bouts of high intensity exercise as an
integral part of rutine practice are essential for athletes participating in high
power and/or speed sports. The event period of these sports may last 4 to 30 s
(short) or 40 to 120 s (long) and as a rule, athletes perform their training with
the mode of exercise in which they compete (i.e., running, cycling, swimming,
other locomotory activities). In addition, athletes often participate in repeated
events within a competition. During training of high intensity, athletes
experience fatigue and their performance declines. This drop in performance is
observed both within a single sprint as well as during successive sprints of
maximum intensity (Bogdanis et al., 1995; Spencer et al., 2006; Toubekis et
al., 2005).
The fatigue caused during sprinting is a multi-factorial phenomenon that is
mainly attributed to acute metabolic alterations. The rapid activation of
glycolysis and the concomitant increase of the hydrogen ion concentration
(H+) induce intramuscular acidosis and lead to the decline of performance
(Gaitanos et al., 1993; Bogdanis et al., 1998; Hargreaves et al., 1998).
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
3
Moreover, the depletion of phosphocreatine (PCr) stores occurring
simultaneously with the increased levels of inorganic phosphate (Pi) are only
two of the many inter-dependent factors that may impair muscle function
(Bogdanis et al., 1995; Westerbland and Allen 2003). In the past, lactate was
believed to be a factor contributing to fatigue, and research was focused on
methods to eliminate this “fatigue agent” from muscles and subsequently from
blood. Early research findings showed that in comparison to passive rest,
active recovery (light exercise) facilitates the removal of lactate from muscles
and blood (Gisolfi et al., 1966).
Although blood and muscle lactate may not have a direct impact on
muscle function and performance (Gladden 2004), it is believed that active
recovery applied within a training set, between sets, or after a training session
is always beneficial in an athlete’s performance. This opinion disregards
recent findings that suggest a number of limitations in the application οf active
recovery during sprinting (Toubekis et al., 2005, 2006, 2008; Spencer et al.,
2006, 2008; Dupont et al., 2007; Buchheit et al., 2009). Several factors may
have an impact on the efficacy of active recovery compared to passive
recovery on performance maintenance following maximum intensity repeated
bouts of sprint exercise. These include the duration of the sprint, the interval
duration between sprints, the duration of active recovery within the interval
time period, the number of repetitions, as well as the mode of exercise applied
during active recovery. In addition, the training status of the participants may
also be a confounding factor.
This chapter presents the changes in performance after active compared to
passive recovery during repeated bouts of maximum intensity exercise. It also
explains the underlying metabolic limitations that may influence the
performance outcome during various modes of exercise.
ACTIVE RECOVERY AND BLOOD LACTATE
There is a consensus in scientific literature that active recovery enhances
the rate of blood lactate removal. However, the rate of blood lactate removal is
dependent on the intensity of active recovery (Belcastro and Bonen, 1975),
arterial lactate concentration (Stanley et al., 1985), muscle glycogen content
(Essen et al. 1975) and muscle fibre type (Bonen et al. 1978). In addition,
increased blood flow may facilitate oxidation of lactate within the muscle
(Brooks, 1986), while active recovery may increase the efflux and flow of
Savvas P. Tokmakidis, Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
4
lactate to other tissues for oxidation (Lindinger et al., 1990) resynthesis to
glycogen (Hermansen and Vaage, 1977) or both (Gollnick et al., 1986).
Furthermore, the muscle mass involved during active recovery may also be
important for blood lactate removal. When the active muscle mass is increased
(e.g. leg exercise during recover), blood lactate clearance is better than when
smaller muscles are involved (McGrail et al., 1978).
Moreover, the training status of the individuals (Taoutaou et al., 1996) and
the mode of the previous exercise, as well as the mode of recovery exercise
may be contributing factors to blood lactate removal. It is also suggested that
active recovery must be applied with the same kind of activity as the previous
exercise, since sport specific active recovery enhances the removal of blood
lactate faster than non specific active recovery (Krukau et al., 1987, Siebers
and McMurray, 1981). It is suggested that, if active recovery is performed
with muscles that were previously inactive (legs), arterial hypotension and a
slower release of lactate from the previously active arm muscles may occur
(Hildebrandt et al., 1992). However, following leg exercise, the rate of lactate
removal was similar irrespective of using the active or inactive leg for active
recovery, whereas, a decreased rate of lactate removal was observed when the
arms were used for active recovery (McLoughlin et al., 1991). It should be
noted that the difference in the rate of lactate removal between the arm and leg
active recovery may be affected by the relative intensity of the selected muscle
group since the selected intensity of active recovery may increase lactate
production during arm exercise (McLoughlin et al., 1991). The literature for
lactate metabolism is extensive and has been reviewed by expert scientists.
Nevertheless, in this chapter only some factors contributing to lactate
elimination will be discussed, in particular those related to performance on a
subsequent sprint.
The Intensity and Mode of Active Recovery
The intensity of active recovery may be important for performance
because it is related to the energy spent within the interval period between
sprints. Different "ideal" recovery exercise intensities have been reported for
cycling (Belcastro and Bonen, 1975, Bonen et al., 1978), running (Hermansen
and Stensvold, 1972, Gisolfi et al., 1966) or swimming (Cazorla et al., 1983,
McMaster et al., 1989). When comparing the different modes of exercise, it is
likely that lactate removal during active recovery may be faster after
swimming compared to running following exercise that had increased the
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
5
blood lactate to similar concentrations (Denadai et al., 2000). Lactate removal
rate after active recovery was higher during swimming (5.3%·min-1;Cazorla et
al., 1983) compared to cycling (2.9%·min-1 at 29% of VO2max; McGrail et al.,
1978, 3.2%·min-1 at 32% of VO2max; Belcastro and Bonen, 1975) or running
(4.5%·min-1 at 63% of VO2max; Hermansen and Stensvold, 1972). It is
suggested that the ideal intensity should not exceed the individual "anaerobic
threshold" (Stamford et al., 1981). It has been reported that the most effective
intensity of active recovery for lactate removal is related to the individual
"anaerobic threshold", suggesting that an intensity of 10% of VO2 max below
the "anaerobic threshold" is the most efficient (McLellan and Skinner 1982).
However, there is evidence that athletes are able to self-select the intensity of
active recovery, and no difference was observed in the lactate removal
between the self-selected and the "ideal" active recovery intensity (Bonen and
Belcastro, 1976; Cazorla et al., 1983).
Even though the reported intensities of active recovery are very useful in
making comparisons in the scientific literature, they offer no help to the
coaches, since they usually have no data that allow them to express swimming,
running or cycling speed during a training session as a percentage of VO2max.
Expression of active recovery as percentage of the speed attained in a race
distance may be more helpful to coaches. For example, swimming speed
corresponding to 60-70 % of the 100 m speed (55 to 73 % of VO2max) was
effective in faster lactate removal than passive rest (Cazorla et al., 1983). It
was reported that 65% of maximum velocity of 200 yd swimming was the
most efficient recovery intensity; however, the velocity of 55 or 75% was
equally effective for lactate removal (McMaster et al., 1989). The self-selected
pace of active recovery in the study of Reaburn and Mackinnon (1990)
corresponded to 63 % of the 100 m swimming speed and significantly
improved the half time of lactate removal compared to passive recovery. The
faster lactate removal during running has been reported to correspond to
velocity at the ventilatory threshold or below the ventilatory threshold in
triathletes (Baltari et al., 2005) and soccer players (Baltari et al., 2004).
Unfortunately, besides swimming there are no data to report the running or
cycling intensities as a percentage of performance time or speed. In summary,
the intensity of active recovery should be below the intensity that increases the
lactate production within the muscle. A question which arises however is
whether the intensity below the “lactate or ventilatory threshold” that
maximizes blood lactate removal during active recovery is also the most
appropriate for performance recovery during a subsequent exercise bout. This
issue will be discussed in a following paragraph within this chapter.
Savvas P. Tokmakidis, Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
6
The Duration of Active Recovery
The duration of active recovery should balance between an effective
lactate removal and time availability within and after a training session. In
most of the studies, the duration of active recovery was long (20 to 60 min;
McGrail et al., 1978; Cazorla et al., 1983; Baltari et al., 2004). The most
significant decrease in blood lactate concentration was observed after the fifth
minute of recovery (McGrail et al., 1978). However, using swimming for
recovery (500 yd, ~8 min) the blood lactate concentration did not change
compared to passive rest, and at least fifteen minutes (1000 yd swimming) was
needed to reach near resting concentration (Beckett and Steigbigel 1993). This
was probably attributed to low post-exercise lactate values. Cazorla et al.,
(1983) reported that 20 minutes of active recovery eliminated blood lactate at a
level equal to 60 min of passive recovery. Furthermore, five minutes as well as
ten minutes of active recovery showed a similar rate of lactate removal, while
both rates were faster than passive recovery (Toubekis et al., 2008a). It is
likely that 10 to 15 minutes of active recovery is adequate to reduce blood
lactate compared to passive recovery. However, it should be noted that blood
lactate may be different from muscle lactate.
Muscle Blood Flow and Lactate Removal
Adequate muscle blood flow is important for energy supply and
maintenance of homeostasis in the muscle and plays a critical role in the
prevention of muscular fatigue (Sjogaard, 1987). During dynamic exercise,
muscle blood flow (MBF) increases linearly with increasing exercise intensity
and is dependent on mean arterial blood pressure (MABP), venous blood
pressure (VBP) and local vascular resistance (LVR) (Sjogaard, 1987). This is
described by the Haagen -Poiseuille equation:
MBF= (MABP -VBP) x LVR-1
From this equation, we can conclude that MBF decreases when LVR or
VBP increases, and increases when MAPB increases and LVR decreases.
During dynamic muscle contractions, vascular resistance decreases and this
increases the MBF (Laughlin and Armstrong, 1985, Delp and Laughlin 1998).
This has been confirmed during knee extension exercise by using invasive
techniques (Bangsbo et al., 1993, 1994). Additionally, the effect of muscular
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
7
contractions (muscle pump) facilitates increased MBF by changing the
arterial-venous blood pressure gradient (Rowel, 1993).
The measurement of muscle blood flow in humans in vivo is very
difficult, given that each muscle may have a different blood flow at any given
time (Rowel, 1993). Suzuki and Bonde-Peterson (1983) found increased MBF
(measured by 133-Xe clearance) after 100 and 400 m running. The MBF was
maintained for a longer period after the 400 m run compared to the 100 m run.
In other types of exercise such as swimming, a horizontal body position
changes the internal hydrostatic pressure. It has been shown that in the supine
position, the hydrostatic pressure is similar in all parts of the body (Wilcock et
al., 2006). In addition, the total peripheral resistance decreases during supine
compared to seated recovery (Johnson et al., 1990). These differences between
exercise modes such as land-based (running, cycling) and water-based
activities (swimming) may cause a higher stroke volume and blood pressure
during swimming compared to running exercise (Holmer et al., 1974) and
possibly affect the muscle blood flow. At this point, it should be considered
that during the interval period after a swimming bout, in most of cases,
swimmers stand in an upright position in the water. Using this practice,
swimmers may eliminate any positive effect of horizontal position on
haemodynamics. However, even in the upright position in the water up to the
mid-sternum level, swimmers may benefit from the hydrostatic pressure
applied on their body (Wilcock et al., 2006). Swimmers, who go out of the
pool during the rest interval may experience a decrease in performance during
a maximum intensity training set (Buchheit et al., 2010). In summury, active
recovery of about 10 to 15 minutes will maintain an increased muscle blood
flow and will decrease blood and muscle lactate levels.
THE RATIONALE FOR USING ACTIVE RECOVERY
Following a sprint of short duration PCr stores are decreased, muscle
lactate is high and a disturbance in acid base balance (pH decrease) occurs.
The expected beneficial effect of active recovery on performance is based on a
faster restoration of muscle homeostasis. Therefore, muscle lactate should
decrease and muscle pH and PCr should recover as soon as possible. Muscle
lactate content may not affect performance during short duration repeated
sprints (Bogdanis et al., 1995). However, the increased activation of glycolysis
during repeated sprints will increase the H+ concentration and will decrease the
Savvas P. Tokmakidis, Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
8
muscle pH. A faster restoration of muscle pH may facilitate the function of
glycolysis providing the ATP demanded for sprinting (Sayrio et al., 2003).
This is because the low pH may affect the function of key glycolytic enzymes
(i.e. phosphorylase, phosphofructokinase). Despite muscle lactate, the PCr
stores are much more important for performance maintenance during short
duration sprints (Bogdanis et al., 1995; Spencer et al., 2008). Therefore, by
applying active recovery, it is assumed that the exercise-induced increase in
muscle blood flow will enhance muscle oxygenation and this, in turn, will
facilitate PCr resynthesis.
Findings from research used magnetic resonance spectroscopy show that
increased oxygen availability will facilitate PCr resynthesis (Haseler et al.,
1999; Hogan et al., 1999) but there is no evidence to confirm that exercise-
induced increase in blood flow will facilitate as well PCr resynthesis. This is
because the exercising muscle during active recovery may use this oxygen for
other metabolic actions ecxept to PCr resynthesis (i.e. lactate oxidation, ATP
recycling for exercise).The importance of adequate blood flow has been shown
when local occlusion of muscle blood flow inhibites the PCr resynthesis and
lactate removal (Trump et al., 1996; Sahlin et al., 1979). The effect of active
compared to passive recovery on some of the important metabolites involved
in muscle performance during sprinting are discussed in the following section.
A flow chart of events that theoretically take place during active recovery are
summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 1. A hypothetical chain of events that may occur after active recovery between
sprints. The discontinuous line indicates unproven effect
Active recovery
Increased Ο2
availability
Increased PCr
resynthesis
Decreased
muscle and
blood
lactate
Increased
muscle pH
Better function of
glycolysis
Better maintenance or
improved performance
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
9
EFFECTS OF ACTIVE RECOVERY ON MUSCLE Η+ AND
LACTATECONCENTRATION, PCR AND GLYCOGEN
The effects of active recovery on blood lactate removal are well
documented. However, a limited number of studies have used muscle biopsies
to examine the changes of muscle lactate and other metabolites or substrates
such as PCr and muscle glycogen, during active compared to passive recovery
following repeated exercise bouts (Spencer et al., 2006, 2008; McAinch et al.,
2004; Bangsbo et al., 1994; Fairchild et al., 2003; Choi et al., 1994; Peters-
Futre et al., 1987). The changes in the rate of recovery of selected metabolites
may have an impact on performance during short or long duration sprints. This
impact may be different (positive or negative) depending on the intensity or
the duration of active recovery. Following a sprint, muscle lactate will increase
while muscle glycogen, pH and PCr will decrease. The magnitude of these
changes is related to sprint duration, the number of sprints as well as the
interval between sprints. Whatever the case, despite a fast PCr resynthesis,
muscle pH, muscle lactate and muscle glycogen restoration may take several
minutes or hours. Active or passive recovery after a sprint may change the rate
of replacement of these metabolites.
Muscle pH and Lactate after Active and Passive Recovery
The muscle homeostasis has been shown to recuperate faster as a response
of active recovery (Sairyo et al., 2003) although this has not observed in all
studies (Bangsbo et al., 1993, 1994). These studies used leg extension
(Bangsbo et al., 1993, 1994) or wrist flexion (Sayrio et al., 2003) as exercise
modes (different from commonly used human locomotory activities) and
measured changes of muscle pH with muscle biopsies and magnetic resonance
spectroscopy respectively. Nevertheless, their findings are in contrast, since
muscle pH after active compared to passive recovery was unchanged during
leg extension but increased during wrist flexion exercise (Bangsbo et al., 1994;
Sayrio et al., 2003). Furthermore, any comparison between studies is difficult
because different active recovery modes were used (progressively decreased
intensity, constant intensity). While there is no strong evidence for a faster
muscle pH restoration, this fact cannot be excluded.
Muscle lactate has been shown to decrease after 10 minutes of active
compared to passive recovery (Bangsbo et al., 1994). However, there are
Savvas P. Tokmakidis, Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
10
reports of higher (Peters-Futre et al., 1987) or unchanged (Choi et al., 1994;
McAinch et al., 2004; Fairchild et al., 2003) muscle lactate concentration
following long duration of active recovery (15 to 60 min). Higher muscle
lactate after active recovery has been reported following repeated short
duration sprints (Spencer et al., 2006). Although the results concerning the
muscle lactate and pH changes after active recovery are limited, it is obvious
that this issue is critical for performance on a subsequent exercise bout and
needs further examination.
PCr Resynthesis after Active and Passive Recovery
Restoration of PCr is of vital importance for performance in a subsequent
sprint (Bogdanis et al., 1995). The PCr resynthesis starts immediately after the
cessation of a sprint bout and is dependent on a number of factors (for review
see McMahon and Jenkins 2002). Briefly, PCr resynthesis is an oxygen
dependent process (Haseler et al., 1999) which is also affected by muscle H+
concentration (Sahlin et al., 1979). Therefore, any factor that may interfere
with oxygen availability and muscle pH will affect the rate of PCr resynthesis.
It has been shown that active recovery decreases muscle oxygenation
(decreased oxygen contend of myoglobin) and leads to increased levels of
deoxyhaemoglobin (Dupont et al., 2007; Buchheit et al., 2009). In this case, it
is not surprising that a lower percentage of PCr was restored immediately after
and 21 s later following a set of 6x4 s sprints (Spencer et al., 2006).
Immediately after the sprint repetitions, only 32% of PCr was resynthesized
following active recovery while 45% of PCr was restored following passive
recovery. Twenty-one seconds after the end of the last sprint, PCr was 55% of
the resting levels when recovery was active compared to 72% when recovery
was passive. Although these differences were not statistically significant, they
showed a trend towards an impairment of PCr resynthesis after active recovery
(Spencer et al., 2006). It is likely that the mitochondrial oxygen demand
during active recovery decreases the oxygen available for PCr resynthesis.
Notably, PCr stores are lower after active recovery compared to passive
recovery not only after short duration but also after long interval duration
(McAinch et al., 2004).
The effects of different intensities of active recovery were studied
following the experimental protocol described previously (i.e. 6x4 s sprints
with 21 s interval; Spencer et al, 2008). Unfortunately muscle biopsies were
not taken after passive recovery; nevertheless, both active recovery intensities
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
11
which were studied corresponded to 20 and 35% of VO2max and showed the
same changes in PCr content following the 6x4 s sprints (Spencer et al., 2008).
In addition, it should be noticed that muscle oxygenation was not different
when active recovery of 20 or 40% of VO2max was used during a short
interval period of 15 s between sprints (Dupont et al., 2007). The absence of
differences between active recovery-intensities may be attributed to the lower
efficiency observed during cycling at very low workloads (Smith et al., 2006;
Ettema and Lorås 2009). Thus, a lower efficiency at very low intensities used
for active recovery may mask any effect of active recovery-intensity on the
PCr content. Furthermore, it is likely that the rate of PCr resynthesis is slower
in type II compared to type I muscle fibers (Casey et al., 1996) and type II
fibers are depleting the PCr stores faster than the type I fibers (Greenhaff et al.,
1994). Because of these differences between fiber types, it is likely that type II
fibers may be more prone to the impairment of PCr resynthesis. These fibers
are mainly activated during short duration sprints performed with fast rate of
muscle actions, such as those performed in the above-mentioned studies.
However, this hypothesis has not been tested after active recovery.
A possible concurrent use of oxygen for lactate oxidation and for muscle
contractions during active recovery may prevent the oxygen needed for a fast
PCr resynthesis. Under these conditions, PCr may be lower after active
compared to passive recovery of short or long duration. This may affect type II
more than type I muscle fibers and probably will decrease performance when a
short interval is provided.
Muscle Glycogen after Active and Passive Recovery
A significant reduction of muscle glycogen occurs after single and
repeated high intensity sprints of short or long duration (Gaitanos et al., 1993,
Bogdanis et al., 1995, Hargreaves et al., 1998). The replenishment of muscle
glycogen starts after a sprint and an increased rate of muscle glycogen
restoration has been reported after cessation of exercise following passive
recovery (Pascoe and Gladden 1996). Muscle glycogen can be partly
replenished during the recovery period, without the availability of any
exogenous carbohydrate source (i.e. fluids or food), using the lactate as a
substrate. Glycogen can be replenished either using lactate directly as a source
or after conversion of lactate to glucose (Fournier et al., 2004). The rate of
refilling of glycogen stores is higher after high intensity compared to low
Savvas P. Tokmakidis, Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
12
intensity exercise probably because of the higher lactate availability following
high intensity exercise.
The lactate during recovery is either converted to glycogen or oxidized
during active recovery (Hermansen and Vaage 1977, Brooks and Gaesser
1980). However, the fate of lactate following active recovery may be an
important issue, since an increased rate of lactate oxidation, which probably
takes place during active recovery, may reduce the substrate availability for
glycogen replenishment within the muscle. Early reports have shown no
different rates of muscle glycogen replenishment after 45 min of active or
passive recovery following high intensity exercise (5x90 s bouts at intensity of
120% VO2max; Peters-Futre et al., 1987). Later studies observed a decreased
rate of glycogen restoration when the participants followed partially active (30
min active plus 30 min passive recovery) compared to 60 min of passive
recovery (Choi et al., 1994). These findings were confirmed by recent studies,
however, the decreased muscle glycogen restoration was limited to the slow
type I muscle fibers, while the fast contracting type II fibers were not affected
(Fairchild et al., 2003).
It should be considered that the impaired muscle glycogen restoration was
observed following long duration active recovery periods (i.e. 30-45 min; Choi
et al., 1994; Fairchild et al., 2003). It is uncommon to use such a long duration
of active recovery during training or following a training session. The duration
of active recovery commonly used in practice (i.e. about 15 min) may not
impair muscle glycogen replenishment. For example, no difference on muscle
glycogen content was observed when active recovery at intensity 40% of VO2
peak was applied for a period of 15 min (McAinch et al., 2004) or after 10
minutes of one leg active recovery (Bangsbo et al., 1994). Coaches are advised
to follow shorter than 15 min of low intensity active recovery in order to avoid
any decrement in the rate of glycogen resynthesis. A fast glycogen resynthesis
is important to maintain a high glycogen content before the start of the next
high intensity event or training session.
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
13
ACTIVE RECOVERY AND
RESTORATION OF PERFORMANCE
Active Recovery versus Passive Recovery between Short
Duration (4 to 30 s) Sprints
Sprints of very short duration (2 to 4 s) are frequently used during team
sports, while sprints of 5 to 30 s appear during individual competitive sports.
In addition, training sessions of many sports include activities of this duration
performed with a maximum intensity. These sprints may be performed with
different intervals depending on the training purpose. In this case, it is possible
that the changes in performance with successive bouts will be affected by
active recovery within the interval.
Performance in cycling and running sprints
Early studies used repeated sprint protocols to examine the effects of
active recovery on performance. The studies of Signorile et al., (1993) and
Ahmaidi et al., (1996) showed that active recovery could be beneficial to
performance. Signorile et al., (1993) applied a set of 8x6 s cycling sprints with
a 30 s interval. Mean power was better after active recovery compared to
passive recovery. Similarly, performance was improved when the same
duration sprints (6 s) were applied with a 5 min interval; especially during
sprints with a high resistive load (i.e. 6 kg; Ahmaidi et al., 1996). However, a
cycling protocol applying 10x10 s sprints with 30 s intervals demonstrated no
significant difference in mean and peak power after active or passive recovery
(Matsushigue et al., 2007). A repeated sprint protocol with short duration
sprints that simulates team-game sprint duration has been applied (6
repetitions of 4 s sprints with 21 s interval) and has also been tested after
active recovery. Nine male moderately trained individuals followed this
protocol during cycling sprints in the study of Spencer et al., (2006). The total
work produced was not different after active or passive recovery; although
peak power decreased more during the last sprints in the active recovery trial
(Spencer et al., 2006). Similarly, using the same protocol in team sport
athletes, it was found that peak power was reduced after active compared to
passive recovery although no differences in total work (3.9% less after active
recovery; Spencer et al., 2008) were observed.
The same protocol of 6x4 s sprints was applied in 10 male individuals
during running on a non-motorized treadmill. Buchheit et al., (2009) found
Savvas P. Tokmakidis, Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
14
that active recovery, corresponding to 45% of the individual vVO2max,
applied during the 21 s interval decreased the running speed (active recovery:
3.79±0.27 vs. passive recovery: 4.09±0.32 m·s-1) and stride frequency. Α clear
negative effect of active recovery was demonstrated when sixteen basketball
players participated in a field study and performed 10x30 m shuttle running
sprints with short interval duration (i.e. exercise to interval ratio 1:5; Castagna
et al., 2008). The basketball players participated in the last study showed an
increased fatigue index and average running time when active compared to
passive recovery was applied during the 30 s intervals between the 30 m
sprints (fatigue index 5% vs. 3.4%; average running time 6.32 s vs. 6.17 s).
When comparing running to cycling exercise, the decrement of
performance after active recovery is more evident in running. This was
observed during the same protocol applying a work to interval ratio of 1:5. The
participants in the above-mentioned studies (Spencer et al., 2006, 2008;
Buchheit et al., 2009) had a similar training and fitness status (moderately
trained, VO2max: 53-55 ml·kg-1·min-1). Although recovery between sprints
may be related not only to VO2max but also to other aerobic fitness index
(Bogdanis et al., 1995), the different response to active recovery during
cycling (improved or no different performance after active compared to
passive recovery) compared to running (decreased performance after AR)
protocols is not easy to explain.
Time is important, not only for the duration of a sprint, but also for the
recovery interval. When a short interval is applied between sprints of 15 to 30
s, the effects of active recovery on fatigue are much clearer. This has been
shown in the study of Dupont et al. (2007) when a 30 s cycling sprint was
performed after a 15 s sprint with a 15 s interval of either active or passive
recovery between sprints. Mean and peak power was significantly reduced
after active recovery compared to passive recovery (Dupont et al., 2007). In
contrast, when long interval duration is applied between 15 to 30 s sprints, it
seems that active recovery may have a beneficial effect. For example, active
recovery applied during a 4 min interval between two 30 s sprints improved
mean power output by 3% compared to passive recovery (Bogdanis et al.,
1996). Similarly, a better maintenance of mean power was reported by
Connolly et al. (2003) during 6x15 s sprints performed when the participants
were cycling at 80W during the 3 min interval period between sprints. The
improved performance after active recovery compared to passive recovery in
the studies of Bogdanis et al. (1996) and Connolly et al. (2003) was confirmed
by Spierer et al. (2004) in trained and untrained individuals during repeated 30
s sprints with a 4 min interval. It is interesting to note that in the study of
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
15
Spierer et al. (2004) the total work increased in both groups after active
recovery, although the mean power increased after active recovery in the
untrained but not in trained participants.
Performance in swimming sprints
Studies applied active recovery between repeated swimming sprints and
have shown that irrespective of the interval duration, performance decreased
after active recovery compared to passive recovery. Three studies have
consistently found decreased performance during a set of 8x25 m sprints
applied with 45 or 120 s intervals in recreationally trained (Toubekis et al.,
2005), well-trained (Toubekis et al., 2006) and sprint-trained swimmers
(Toubekis et al., 2010). However, when a 50 m sprint was applied 6 min
following the 8x25 m sprints, performance was unaffected by active or passive
of recovery (Toubekis et al., 2005; Toubekis et al., 2006; Toubekis et al.,
2010). Combining the results of the last three studies we showed that sprint-
trained compared to untrained swimmers were less affected by active recovery
at an intensity 60% of the 100 m when the interval between sprints was 120 s,
although both groups decreased performance after active recovery (rest to
interval ratio 1:10; effect size: sprint-trained=0.3, untrained=0.6; Figure 2).
However, well-trained swimmers (mixed group of sprint and endurance
trained swimmers) showed no difference with untrained swimmers in their
reaction to active recovery when the 25 m sprints were performed with 45 s
intervals (Figure 2).
It is interesting to note that half of the sprint-oriented swimmers swam
faster by 1.2% while the other half swam 3.2% slower in a 50 m sprint
performed 6 min following the set of 8x25 m sprint (effect size=0.1). It seems
that training status and/or the interval duration are important parameters when
active recovery is applied between sprints, while inter-individual resposnses
should be also be considered when this practice is used. In another study, two
sets of repetitions were applied to simulate high intensity swimming training
(Toubekis et al., 2008). The first set consisted of standard work of 4x30 s
tethered swimming bouts at intensity 154% of the VO2max. This set was
followed by 4x50 yard repetitions starting every 2 min (~90 s interval). It is
interesting to note that when active recovery was applied during the 5 min
interval between two sets of repetitions, a tendency for improved performance
was observed in the second set of repetitions (Toubekis et al., 2008). In
contrast, performance was decreased when active recovery was applied during
the interval time between repetitions of the second set (4x50 y).
Savvas P. Tokmakidis, Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
16
Figure 2. Upper panel: Μean time of 8x25 m sprints in untrained swimmers compared
to sprint-trained and well-trained swimmers (120 s interval left; 45 s interval - right).
Lower panel: Performance time during the 8x25 m sprints was performed either with a
120 s (left) or with a 45 s (right) interval. A greated performance decrease was
observed after active recovery in untrained compared to sprint-trained with 120 s
interval but no different response was observed between well-trained and untrained
when the interval was 45 s. *: sprint number vs. performance time interaction. See text
for details. Data from Toubekis et al., (2005, 2006 and 2010)
Figure 3. A schematic flow of events leading to decreased performance following
active recovery between short duration sprints (4 to 30 s) with relatively short interval
duration (exercise to interval ratio 1:3 to 1:5)
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.0
15.5
16.0
16.5
17.0
17.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
25-m sprint repetitions (120s interval)
Time (s)
PAS Untrained
ACT Untrained
PAS Sprint trained
ACT Sprint trained
12345678
25-m sprint repetitions (45s interval)
PAS Untrained
ACT Untrained
PAS Trained
ACT Trained
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Untrained Sprint Trained
Mean time of 8x25-m (s)
PAS
ACT
*
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Untrained Trained
Mean time of 8x25-m (s)
PAS
ACT
Active recovery
Increased energy cost
Increased HbO2
Decreased muscle reoxygenation
Decreased O2 availability
Decreased PCr resynthesis
Decreased performance
Table 1. Summary of studies comparing active versus passive recovery between repeated
sprints of short duration (4 to 30 s) in different types of activities
Study
Participants
Type of exercise-
tests
Intensity of
active recovery
Performance
Active versus Passive
recovery
Cycling
Matsushigue et al.,
2007
15M
10x10 s
I: 30 s
60W
PP:NS
MP:NS
MP < in sprint 2 with AR
Connolly et al., 2003
7M
Recr
6x15 s
I: 3 min
80W
PP and MP: NS
Spencer et al., 2006
9M, Mod
VO2max: 4.4 l·min-1
6x4 s
I: 21 s
35% VO2max
TW: NS
6th sprint PP < with AR
Spierer et al., 2004
3M, 3F Unt
VO2max: 36.9 ml·kg-1·min-
1
9M Mod
VO2max:45.6 ml·kg-1·min-1
Repeated 30 s
(until power
drop>70% of 1st)
I: 4 min
28% VO2max
MP > with AR in Unt MP:
NS in Mod
TW > with AR in both
groups
Bogdanis et al., 1996
13M
VO2max:4.3 l/min
2x30 s
I: 4 min
40% VO2max
MP 2.3% > with AR
Ahmaidi et al., 1996
10M
VO2max:56.2 ml·kg-1·min-1
Repeated 6 s
I: 5 min
32% VO2max
MP > with AR
Signorile et al., 1993
6M
8x6 s
I: 30 s
60W
MP > with AR
Table 1. (Continued)
Study
Participants
Type of exercise-
tests
Intensity of
active recovery
Performance
Active versus Passive
recovery
Running
Buchheit et al., 2009
10M
VO2max:55.1 ml·kg-1·min-1
6x4 s
I: 21 s
~45%
vVO2max
Time > with AR
Stride freq.< with AR
Team-game activities
Castagna et al., 2008
16M
basketball players
VO2max:59.5 ml·kg-1·min-1
10x30 m (~6 s)
shuttle runs
I: 30 s
50% MAS
Time > with AR
FI > with AR
Swimming
Toubekis et al., 2005
8M and 8F
swimmers
8x25 m+1x50 m
I: 45 or 120 s (25
m)
I: 6 min (50 m)
60% 100-m
25 m Time > with AR
50 m Time: NS
Toubekis et al., 2008
8M swimmers
VO2max: 4.2 l·min-1
4x30 s + 4x50-y
I: 5 min (in sets)
I:~90 s (in sprints)
60% 100-m
Time NS: with AR between
sets.
Time > with AR in 50y
MAS: maximal aerobic speed, I: interval, PP: peak power, MP: mean power, TW: total work, Recr: recreationally active, Mod:
moderately trained, Unt: untrained, PR: passive recovery, AR: active recovery, NS: no significant difference between acteive and
passive recovery, M: male, F: female.
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
19
The findings of the swimming studies support the argument that when a
long duration interval (work to interval ratio 1:8 to 1:12) is applied, active
recovery may be beneficial or have no negative impact on performance
compared to passive recovery in sprints of about 15 to 30 s duration (Bogdanis
et al., 1996; Connolly et al., 2003; Spierer et al., 2004; 50 m sprints, Toubekis
et al., 2005, 2006, 2008).In contrast, performance during 4 to 10 s sprints has
been shown to decrease after active recovery compared to passive recovery
when a work to interval ratio of 1:3 to 1:5 is applied (Spencer et al., 2006,
2008; Dupont et al., 2007; Buchheit et al., 2009; Castagna et al., 2008). An
exemption is the study of Signorile et al. (1993) who found increased
performance after repeated 6 s sprints applied with a 30 s interval. In Figure 3,
the physiological events that may lead to decreased performance during
repeated sprint with short interval duration are summarized. Other factors such
as the mode of exercise, the training status of the participants or the intensity
of active recovery may be contributing factors. The issue of intensity of active
recovery will be discussed later in this chapter. The studies which examined
the effects of active recovery compared to passive recovery on performance
are presented in Table 1.
Active versus Passive Recovery between Long Duration (40 to
120 s) Sprints
Performance in swimming sprints
The majority of studies that have examined the effects of active recovery
versus passive recovery on performance during long duration sprint exercise
have shown similar results. McMurray (1969) reported no differences after
different modes of passive recovery compared to active recovery in
performance of a 200-yard swim. In four different conditions, following a
standard load exercise, the swimmers rested passively in an upright position,
in supine, stood still in the water, or swum slowly during recovery before a
200-yard test (McMurray 1969). Besides this early study, further studies
reported beneficial performance outcome after active recovery in different
protocols using cycling or swimming. Surprisingly, no running studies have
tested the effect of active recovery between sprints of 40 to 120 s duration so
far. During competitions, swimmers may be asked to participate in repeated
races with an interval duration of 10 to 30 minutes. It is advised that during the
interval period they should follow active recovery since experimental evidence
suggests that this practiceis beneficial (Felix et al., 1997; Greenwood et al.,
Savvas P. Tokmakidis, Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
20
2008; Toubekis et al., 2008a). Repetitions of 100 m and 200 yard swimming
may be performed faster when active recovery rather than passive recovery is
applied during a 10 to 15 min interval (Felix et al., 1997; Greenwood et al.,
2008; Toubekis et al., 2008a). The effective intensity of active recovery during
the above studies was reported corresponding to 100 or 200-y best time (i.e
60% of the 100-m, 65% of the 200-yard; Toubekis et al., 2008a; Felix et al.,
1997) or the lactate threshold (Greenwood et al., 2008).
Performance in cyclingsprints
Exercise at intensity 120 to 130% of VO2max can be sustained for about 2
minutes before exhaustion. This intensity has been applied in the studies of
Thiriet et al., (1993) and Dorado et al., (2004). Thiriet et al. (1993) reported
improved performance when active recovery was used during the 20-min
interval between 4x120 s bouts at an intensity 130% of the VO2max. The
beneficial effects on performance were evident after either arms or legs
cycling active recovery (Thiriet et al., 1993). When four repetitions at an
intensity 120% of VO2max were performed until the participants were unable
to maintain 70 rpm; active recovery applied during the 5 min interval
improved performance by 3-4% compared to passive recovery (Dorado et al.,
2004). Although the cycling bouts were performed up to exhaustion, the
duration of each bout was not reported in the last study. Nonetheless,
inspection of figure 3 of the paper reveals a time range from ~40 to ~120 s
(Dorado et al., 2004). During sprints of this duration, aerobic contribution
becomes more important with successive sprints (Bogdanis et al., 1996a). As
the authors discussed an increased aerobic contribution and increased oxygen
kinetics was the main reason for improved performance after active recovery
compared to passive recovery (Dorado et al., 2004). The performance results
reported in the above-mentioned studies are in agreement with previous
findings of Weltman et al. (1977) who reported improved number of pedal
revolutions despite no differences in mean power when active recovery was
applied between two 60 s sprints after a 10 and 20 min interval. However,
when a short recovery period (work to rest ratio 1:2.5) was used during
repeated ice skating sprints, the distance covered during a series of 7x40 s
repetitions was similar after active or passive recovery (Lau et al., 2001). The
ice hockey players participated in the last study performed 7x40 s sprints with
90 s interval and repeated the same set of repetitions after a 15 min interval
which included 12 minutes of self-selected cycling active recovery (Lau et al.,
2001).
Table 2. Summary of studies using active versus passive recovery between repeated sprints of
long duration (40 to 120 s) in different types of activities
Study
Participants
Type of exercise-tests
Intensity of active recovery
Performance
Active versus Passive recovery
Cycling
Dorado et al., 2004
10M, Recr
4x40 to 120 s at 120% of
VO2max to exhaustion
I: 5 min
20% VO2max
Performance
AR > PR
Thiriet et al., 1993
16M Recr
VO2max:
45.3 ml·kg-1·min-1
4x120 s at 130% of VO2max
I: 20 min
30% VO2max
arms or legs
Performance
AR > PR
Weltman et al., 1977
11M
VO2max:
42.9 ml·kg-1·min-1
2x60 s
I: 10 or 20 min
60W
Pedal revolutions
AR > PR
Game-sport activities
Lau et al., 2001
18M
Ice hockey players
2 x (7 x 40 s)
I: 90 s
I:15 min between sets
S-S Cycling at 50-70 rpm
for 12 min
Distance skated: NS
Swimming
Felix et al., 1997
10F
2x200 y
I: 14 min
12 min at 65% of 200y
Performance 200 y
AR 1.7% > PR
Toubekis et al., 2008a
5M, 6F
2x100 m
I: 15 min
60% 100 m
AR: 5 min AR:10 min
Performance 100 m
5 min AR > PR
10 min AR : NS
McMurray 1969
8M
5 min at 160 b/min + 200-y
swim
I: 3 min
HR range 118-126 b/min
200-y Time: NS
Recr: recreationally active, S-S: self-selected, PR: passive recovery, AR: active recovery, NS: no significant difference, I: interval
duration, M: male, F: female.
Savvas P. Tokmakidis, Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
22
Figure 4. A schematic representation of a series of events that may act to improve
performance after active recovery during long duration sprints (40 to 120 s).
Discontinuous lines indicate effects that have not been proved yet. *indicate that a
part of the interval is active recovery and the intensity as low as possible
A summary of studies examined the effects of active versus passive
recovery between 40 to 120 s sprints is shown in Table 2. It seems that active
recovery is beneficial and maintains a better performance on subsequent bouts
following sprints of long duration when a long interval is available (i.e. work
to exercise ratio 1:10 to 1:15). However, important issues such as the intensity
and duration of active recovery are still under research. The physiological
factors that may contribute to increased performance after active recovery
compared to passive recovery during long duration sprints are presented in
Figure 4.
The effects of intensity of active recovery on sprint performance
The intensity of active recovery may be crucial for the performance
outcome. Athletes should follow active recovery at a low energetic cost while
at the same time muscle blood flow must be adequately increased. A low
energetic cost may be necessary for a fast recovery of high energy phosphates
while an adequate muscle blood flow is required for the removal of metabolic
by-products. Recent studies examined the effects of different intensities of
active recovery on performance. The intensity is expressed as a percentage of
VO2maxduring cycling and team-game activities (Dupont et al., 2007; Spencer
et al., 2008; Maxwell et al., 2008) as a percentage of the best time or as a
percentage relative to the lactate threshold during swimming (Toubekis et al.,
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
23
2006; Toubekis et al., 2010; Greenwood et al., 2008). During the 21 s interval
between 6x4 s sprints, both active recovery intensities were applied at 20 or
35% of the VO2max and equally decreased peak power and total work
compared to passive recovery in team-sport trained individuals (Spencer et al.,
2008). Similarly, when active recovery intensities corresponding to 20 or 40%
of the VO2maxwere compared to passive recovery, both decreased
performance in a 30 s sprint performed shortly (15 s) after a 15 s sprint
(Dupont et al., 2007). It is possible that the short interval duration or the small
difference between intensities of active recovery applied in the studies of
Spencer et al. (2008) and Dupont et al. (2007) have masked the effects of
active recovery. This may have also occurred during repeated 25 m sprints
with a 45 s interval when the active recovery intensity was 50 or 60% of the
100 m velocity (Toubekis et al., 2006). Using longer interval duration (120 s)
and a greater difference between active recovery intensities on the same
repeated swimming sprint protocol, the results were different from previous
studies (Toubekis et al., 2010). In that study the low and high intensity active
recovery were estimated to correspond to 36% and 59% of the VO2max (40%
and 60% of the 100-m velocity). During passive recovery and active recovery
at low intensity trials, performance was better compared to high intensity
active recovery (Toubekis et al., 2010). However, in the repeated swimming
sprint studies, performance of a subsequent 50 m sprint (duration ~30s) swum
after six minutes, was unaffected by active recovery intensity (Toubekis et al.,
2006; Toubekis et al., 2010). Therefore, it is likely that long interval duration
(i.e. work to interval ratio 1:10 to 1:12) in combination with very low intensity
of active recovery have a beneficial effect on performance compared to a high
intensity active recovery.
A different approach to test the effects of swimming intensity during
active recovery was applied by Greenwood et al., (2008). The authors
calculated the velocity corresponding to the lactate threshold using a speed-
lactate test and subsequently asked their swimmers to perform 2x200-yard
sprints with a 10-min interval using passive recovery or active recovery. The
active recovery intensities reported, were below, above or at the lactate
threshold. It is interesting to note that performance during the second 200 yard
sprint was improved not only compared to passive recovery but also compared
to the first 200 yard sprint after active recovery at a velocity corresponding to
the lactate threshold (Greenwood et al., 2008). It should be noted however,
that the lactate threshold velocity can be calculated using different methods
and readers should be aware that no single method can be used as a gold
standard (Tokmakidis et al., 1998).
Savvas P. Tokmakidis,Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
24
During game-sports activities, it has been shown that low intensity is
beneficial compared to high intensity of active recovery (35 vs. 50% of
VO2max) allowing a 3% better peak power during repeated 5 s cycling sprints
(Maxwell et al., 2008). These 5 s sprints were performed within 20x2-min
blocks. Within each 2 min block, a 10 s standing, 5 s sprint and 105 s of active
recovery were performed (Maxwell et al., 2008). During a different protocol
applied by Del Coso et al. (2010), the mean power output during a 4 s cycling
sprint was not different after intermittent sets performed with different active
recovery intensity and different interval duration but with equal energy
expenditure.
In summary, it seems that very low intensity combined with a long
interval duration (exercise to interval ratio 1:10) may maintain performance
similar to passive recovery during short duration sprints. In contrast, active
recovery intensity at the lactate threshold velocity, which is still very low
intensity, may be beneficial not only to maintain but in some cases may
improve performance on a subsequent sprint of 60 to 120 s duration.
The effect of exercise mode during active recovery
Few studies applied a different mode of exercise during the sprint
compared to that applied during active recovery. For example, Siebers and
McMurray (1981) tested a 200 yard swim after a 15-min interval following a
2-min standard tethered swimming exercise at intensity 90% of VO2max. The
study included two experimental conditions with active recovery walking or
swimming. During the 15-min interval, swimmers either walked on the pool-
deck (velocity 2.5 to 3 mph) or swum at self-selected intensity (moderate
pace) for 10 minutes and then rested passively for the remaining 5 min. A
limitation of this study was that the intensity of exercise was not specified. No
difference was observed in the 200-yard swim although swimmers were 1%
faster after swimming active recovery (Siebers and McMurray 1981).
Swimming or rowing active recovery was applied during the 14-min interval
between two 200 yard sprints (Felix et al., 1997). The active recovery intensity
corresponded to the 65% of the 200 yard velocity and to the 60% of the
maximum heart rate for rowing and performed for 10 minutes within the 14-
min interval period. Swimming times of the second 200 yard sprint were
similar after swimming or rowing active recovery and both were faster
compared to passive recovery condition (Felix et al., 1997). Active recovery at
the same relative intensity with arms or legs (30% of the VO2max) was
applied in the study of Thiriet et al., (1993). Both modes of active recovery
improved performance compared to passive recovery (Thiriet et al., 1993).
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
25
It seems that the mode of active recovery is not critical for the
performance outcome on a subsequent bout at least when a long interval is
provided and the tested exercise bout is a long duration sprint (i.e. ~120 s). A
summary of studies which examined the effects of the intensity of active
recovery or different modes of active recovery on performance are shown on
Table 3.
The effects of active recovery duration on performance
When several experimental protocols apply active recovery between
repetitions, there is a need to stop the participant for blood sampling. Thus,
part of the interval between sprints is passive recovery and the remaining is
active. This means that although the recovery is characterized as active, in
fact, it is partially active and partially passive. The extent of this passive rest
period within an active interval may affect the recovery process. In the studies
of Felix et al., (1993), Siebers and McMurray (1981), Toubekis et al. (2008),
during active recovery conditions, almost 1/3 of the interval was passive
recovery. Only one study has examined the effects of active recovery duration
on performance. Toubekis et al. (2008a) found that when a 15-min interval is
provided, a 5-min active recovery was appropriate to enhance performance
compared to a 10-min active and 15-min passive recovery. In the study of Del
Coso et al. (2010), the different duration of active recovery of 4.5, 6 or 9 min,
was designed to demand the same energy expenditure applying intensities
corresponding to 24, 18 or 12% of the respiratory compensation threshold.
Despite the differences in duration and intensity of active recovery, the
performance on a subsequent 4 s sprint was not different between conditions.
It is likely that a combination of active and passive recovery may be beneficial
between long duration sprints, and the appropriate duration of active recovery
which may also depend on the intensity and duration of the tested sprint
remains to be examined.
Active recovery during various types of exercise
Despite performance time, mean power, peak power and total work
measured in most of the studies, there are other specific sport abilities that
should be examined after active recovery compared to passive recovery. The
evaluation of isometric muscle force and muscle torque during isokinetic
contractions are important parameters for specific sports performance. Several
studies examined the force and isokinetic muscle function after active or
passive recovery. Following a 60 s maximum exercise at 150% of VO2max,
Savvas P. Tokmakidis,Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
26
active recovery (cycling at 30 % of VO2max) or passive recovery had no
positive or negative effect onpeak torque and total work of the dominant
quatriceps during 60 repetitions (~90 s) performed at an angular velocity
150o·s-1 (Bond et al., 1991). In contrast, the maximum torque measured at an
angular velocity of 60o·s-1 was increased after 15 minutes of active recovery at
30% but not after active recovery at 60% of the VO2max(McEniery et al.,
1997).
The maximum voluntary contraction (MVC:isometric force) was
measured after low intensity (50% of MVC) isometric contraction to fatigue
and improved after a 5-min active recovery cycling at 10W (60 rpm) compared
to passive recovery (Mika et al., 2007). Furthermore, the isometric hand-grip
force, which may be important for climbing, was reduced during the 30
minutes after a climbing trial (Watts et al., 2000). The reduction in isometric
hand-grip force was significantly greater one minute after the trial when the
climbers applied recumbent cycling at 25W as active recovery compared to
passive recovery (Watts et al., 2000).
Partially active recovery (5 min active plus 5 min passive) was applied
during the 10-min interval separating the six competitive men’s gymnastics
events (floor, pommel, rings, vault, parallel bars, horizontal bar), and this
practice helped the participants to achieve higher scores compared to passive
recovery (Jemni et al., 2003). The different protocols applied and the limited
number of studies where the isometric muscle force or muscle torque was
examined do not allow us to reach a firm conclusion concerning the
effectiveness of active recovery on muscle function. Further research is needed
to examine the efficacy of active recovery under specific sport conditions. A
summary of the findings concerning muscle function and specific sport
activities ispresented in Table 4.
Active Recovery Following a Game or Training Session and
Performance
Performance in team sports
Athletes are advised to follow a cool-down practice after a high intensity
training session or after competition. The main reason for this practice is to
enhance the lactate removal and recovery of homeostasis. It is believed that
this will facilitate the recovery of performance before the next session.
However, active recovery following a training session may not offer any
advantage for performance (Barnett, 2006).
Table 3. Effects of different intensities or different types of active recovery compared to passive
recovery during repeated sprints in various types of exercise
Study
Participants
Type of exercise-tests
Intensity of active
recovery
PerformanceActive versus
Passive recovery
Cycling
Spencer et al.,
2008
9M
team sport athletes
VO2max:3.8 l·min-
1
6x4 s
I: 21 s
20 or 35% VO2max
PP and TW: NS between ARs
PP< with ARs
Dupont et al.,
2007
12 M
soccer players
15 and 30 s
I:15 s
20 or 40% VO2max
MP: NS between ARs
MP< with ARs
Del Coso et al.,
2010
11M
VO2max: 3.7
l·min-1
4x90 s sprints at 163% of the RCT.
4 s sprint before and after the 4x90 s
24, 18, 12% of the
RCT for 4.5, 6, 9 min
MP: NS with ARs
Team-game activities
Maxwellet al.,
2008
8M
20x2 min cycling
(10 s rest-5 s sprint-105 s AR)
35 or 50% VO2peak
PP > with the lower AR
intensity
Swimming
Toubekis et al.,
2006
9M
swimmers
VO2max:
65.1 ml·kg-1·min-1
8x25 m + 50 m
I: 45 s (25 m)
I: 6 min (before 50 m)
50 or 60% 100 m
25-m Time: NS between ARs,
25-m Time > after ARs vs.
PR
Toubekis et al.,
2010
10M
swimmers
8x25 m + 50 m,
I:120 s (25 m)
I: 6 min (before 50 m)
40 or 60% 100 m
25-m Time: NS PR and AR at
40%.
25-m Time> AR at 60% vs
PR
Table 3. (Continued)
Study
Participants
Type of exercise-tests
Intensity of active
recovery
Performance Active versus
Passive recovery
Greenwood et al.,
2008
14M
swimmers
2x200 m
I: 10 min
i) LT
ii) below LT
iii) above LT
200-y Time < after LT-AR
Siebers and
McMurray 1981
6F
swimmers
2 min 90% of VO2max followed by
200 y swim
I: 15 min
i) S-S: 10 min walk +
5 min sit
ii) S-S: 10 min swim
+ 5min sit.
200-y Time: NS between ARs
(1% faster 200-y after swim
recovery)
Felix et al., 1997
10F
swimmers
2x200 y
I: 14 min
(2 min PR + 10 min AR + 2 min
PR)
i) swim 65% of 200 y
ii) rowing at 60% of
HRmax
200-y Time < with swimming
and rowing ARs
I: interval duration, RCT: respiratory compensation threshold, PP: peak power, MP: mean power, TW: total work, ARs: All Active
Recovery conditions, PR: passive recovery, AR: active recovery, LT: lactate threshold, S-S: self-selected, NS: no significant
difference, HRmax: maximum heart rate, M: male, F:female.
Table 4. Effects of active recovery following various types of athletic activities
Study
Participants
Type of exercise-tests
Intensity of active
recovery
Performance
(AR vs. PR)
Mika et al.,
2007
10M
Leg extension and flexion
3 x 50% of MVC with 30 s
interval.
MVC tested 5 min later
Cycling 10W at 60rpm
MVC > after AR Time to
sustain 50% of MVC: NS
Watts et al.,
2000
8M in the AR group
7M in the PR group
Wall climbing
Duration 2.57 min.
Hand grip measured 1, 10, 20, 30
min post climbing
Cycling at 25W recumbent
Hand grip < 1 min after
climbing with AR
Jemni et al.,
2003
12 M gymnasts
All Gymnastic apparatus,
10 min interval between
5 min passive + 5 min
active self selected, below
AT
Improved performance
score with AR
Bond et al.,
1991
5M
60 s sprint at 150% of VO2max
20 min recovery followed by
isokinetic evaluation
60 repetitions (~90s)
30 % VO2max
NS: AR vs. PR
McEniery et al.,
1997
4M, 1F
4x30 s sprints with 4 min interval,
followed by 15 min recovery.
Isokinetc strength at 1, 6 11, 16
min of recovery
30 or 60% of peak VO2,
self selected cadence
Max torque> after AR at
30% compared to PR
MVC: Maximum voluntary contraction (isometric), NS: no significant difference, AR: active recovery, PR: passive recovery, AT:
anaerobic threshold, M: male, F: female.
Savvas P. Tokmakidis, Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
30
More recent studies have investigated the effectiveness of active recovery
immediately after a training session on performance before the next session.
Tessitore et al. (2007) and Tessitore et al. (2008) examined the effects of
different modes of 20 min active and passive recovery following a soccer
training session and following futsal soccer games on performance 5 hours
later. It was found that performance on several anaerobic tests such as the
squat-jump, the countermovement jump, bounce-jump and 10 m sprint time
were not affected by the mode of recovery, which included dry-land or water-
based active recovery, electrostimulation, or passive rest (Tessitore et al.,
2007, 2008). It is likely that the training stimulus was moderate and the
recovery process of these athletes following training or competition was well-
designed (players followed proper hydration and nutrition) and these may have
masked any effect of the recovery interventions.
A study applied with international level female soccer players extended
the performance testing 69 hours following a friendly game between national
teams (Andersson et al., 2008). Active recovery was applied 22 and 46 hours
following the match and included 60 minutes of low intensity cycling and low
intensity resistance training (60% of HRmax; <50%1RM). Performance during
a 20-m sprint, countermovement jump and isokinetic strength were not
different following either active or passive recovery (Andersson et al., 2008).
Similar results were obtained by King and Duffield (2009) in female netball
players after a session including various sport specific activities. Fifteen
minutes of active recovery at an intensity of 40% of the velocity at VO2max
(vVO2max) or passive recovery showed similar effects on performance during
five vertical jumps height and five 20-m sprints time both tested before a
second session 24-hours later (King and Duffield 2009). The total stress
imposed to the athletes during these non-controlled game-sport conditions is
high enough to cause fatigue. Probably the active recovery applied after
training session or a match is not appropriate to enhance performance recovery
of selected tests in well-trained players. However, the effect of active recovery
on the next training session on the overall game performance has not so far
examined.
Performance in individual sports
During a laboratory setting, it is possible to control the load applied on the
subjects. A controlled high intensity cycling protocol was applied by Lane and
Wenger (2004) to examine the effects of several types of recovery on
performance 24 hours later. Ten active males performed a series of 22 sprints
ranging in duration from 5 to 15 s all applied with a work to rest interval 1:5.
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
31
Following this high intensity session, the participants followed a 15-min
massage, cold water immersion, active recovery at an intensity of 30% of
VO2max and passive recovery on four experimental conditions. Performance
measured in the same 22 sprints 24 hours later was maintained in all recovery
conditions (massage, cold water immersion, active recover) but was reduced
after passive recovery (Lane and Wenger 2004).
Figure 5. Blood lactate changes (panel A) during the training session followed either
by passive or active recovery. Changes in stroke length (panel B) and percentage
changes in stroke length (panel C) the days before (DAY 1) and the day after (DAY 3)
the training session. * indicate p<0.05 between ACT and PAS conditions, # indicate
differences between DAY 1 and DAY 3. (Data from Tsami et al., 2006; Reproduced
with permission)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Rest post 8x200-m pre 8x50-m mid 8x50 end 8x50 15-min post
training
Blood sampling during and after the training session
Blood Lactate (mmol/l)
PAS
ACT
*
A
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
DAY 1 DAY 3
Testing da y
Stroke Length (m/cycle)
ACT
PAS
#
B
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
PAS ACT
Experimental conditions
Change in stro ke length(%)
*
C
Table 5. The training content followed during
the study of Tsami et al., (2006)
Warm up
1. 200-m freestyle
2. 2x200-m individual medley, swimming drills
3. 200-m choice
Main part of
training
4. 200-m arms only swimming
5. 200-m legs only swimming
6. 8Χ200-m front-crawl (95% of the Critical Velocity; 25 s rest)
7. 300-m legs only swimming
8. 8x50-m [performed as 2x(4x50-m)] max effort starting every 2 min
Recovery
15 min of active or passive recovery
Table 6. The effects of active recovery applied after a training session or competition on
performance during the following session or the following day
Study
Participants
Type of exercise-tests
Intensity of active recovery
Performance
(AR vs. PR)
Andersson
et al., 2008
17F
soccer players
Two Soccer games within 72 hours
Tests: 20-m sprint and CMJ
45% VO2max
(20 min)
NS
King and Duffield
(2009)
10F
netball players
Netball game simulation on two
subsequent days.
Tests: VJ and 20-m sprint
40% VO2max
(15 min)
NS
Lane and Wenger
(2004)
10M
22 cycling sprints:
12x5 s, 6x10 s , 4x15 s.
interval 25 s, 50 s, 75 s
30 % VO2max
(15 min)
MP: Maintained with AR.
Decreased with PR
Table 6. (Continued)
Study
Participants
Type of exercise-tests
Intensity of active recovery
Performance
(AR vs. PR)
Tessitore
et al., 2007
12M
soccer players
SJ, CMJ, BJ, 10 m sprint, before a
morning and afternoon soccer
training sessions (5-hours break)
20 min of AR in water or
land movements vs. PR
NS
Tessitore
et al., 2008
10M
futsal players,
VO2max:
52.2 ml·kg-
1·min-1
SJ, CMJ,10 m sprint, before and
after a game and 5 hours latter
20 min of AR in water or
land movements vs. PR
NS
Tsami
et al., 2006
4M, 6F
swimmers
High intensity swimming training.
Tests: 400 m sumbaximal 50 m
maximum
15 min AR at 60% of the
100 m velocity
400 m: SL maintainance
after AR
MP: mean power, CMJ: countermovement jump, VJ: vertical jump, SJ: squat jump, BJ: bounch jump, SL: stroke length, F: female, M:
male, AR: active recovery, PR: passive recovery, NS: no significant difference after active or passive recvery.
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
34
In addition to cycling, swimming training intensity can be precisely
controlled in the field (swimming pool). The effects of active or passive
recovery were studied after a high intensity training session in young
swimmers (Tsami et al., 2006). The swimmers completed a training session
including high intensity aerobic and anaerobic contents (see Table 5). The day
before training and the day after training, swimmers performed a 50-m
maximal and a 400-m sumbaximal (85% of the best time) test for the
evaluation of metabolic and temporal parameters (stroke rate and stroke
length). Fifteen minutes of active recovery at a pace corresponding to 60% of
the 100-m velocity were applied immediately after the training session and
helped to maintain a higher stroke length compared to passive recovery on the
400-m sub-maximal test but had no effects on the maximum intensity 50-m
sprint time the day after training (Figure 5; Tsami et al., 2006). The results
from studies in individual sports are not conclusive but support the use of a 15-
min low intensity active recovery following a training session. A summary of
studies using active recovery after a training session or competition are shown
in Table 6.
CONCLUSION
Active recovery compared to passive recovery is strongly associated with
greater metabolic demands, and this has an impact on performance. Active
recovery should be used by athletes between sprint repetitions with a duration-
time-period of 40 to 120 s to enhance the lactate removal and possibly result in
a faster restoration of muscle pH. The application of this practice at an
intensity below or at the lactate threshold (i.e., exercise that will not add more
lactate to the circulation) may maintain performance and in some cases, when
only two sprint bouts are performed, it may help to enhance performance.
When a long duration-interval-period is available between sprints (i.e., 15 to
20 min), the application of active recovery for the 1/3 of that period, while
leaving some time for passive recovery, may be beneficial. Under these
conditions, the faster pH restoration, increased activation and contribution of
aerobic metabolism and adequate PCr resynthesis may be beneficial to
performance during training and competition.
Active recovery should not be used, when a short interval (i.e., 20 to 120
s) is provided, between sprints with a duration-time-period of 4 to 15 s. This
practice will increase the energy cost because of the oxygen required for
exercise, thus preventing the muscle re-oxygenation leading to inadequate PCr
resynthesis and decreased performance. However, during team-sport games it
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
35
is not practical to advise players to stand passively after a sprint. The game
demands, in many cases, require slow intensity running between sprints. Thus,
active recovery between sprints should become a routine training practice.
When a long duration-interval-period (i.e., more than 3 to 4 min) is available
between sprints of 15 to 30 s, a very low intensity active recovery may
maintain performance similar to that after passive recovery.
There is no adequate evidence to suggest that active recovery applied
following a training session is beneficial in team sports. However, in
individual sports and when high intensity training has been applied, it is likely
that active recovery may benefit the performance outcome during the next
training session. Clearly, this cannot be attributed to lactate or other currently
known metabolic factors.
REFERENCES
Ahmaidi, S., Granier, P., Taoutaou, Z., Mercier, J., Dubouchaud, H.& Prefaut,
C. (1996). Effects of active recovery on plasma lactate and anaerobic
power following repeated intensive exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc.,28(4),
450-456.
Andersson, H., Raastad, T., Nilson, J., Paulsen, G., Garthe, I.& Kadi, F.
(2008). Neuromascular fatigue and recovery in elite female soccer: Effects
of active recovery. Med Sci Sports Exerc.,40(2), 372-380.
Baldari, C., Videira, M., Madeira, F., Sergio, J.& Guidetti, L. (2004). Lactate
removal during active recoveryEur J Appl Physiol., 93(1-2), 224-230.
Baldari, C., Videira, M., Madeira, F., Sergio, J.& Guidetti, L. (2005). Blood
lactate removal during recovery. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 45(4), 460-
466.
Bangsbo, J., Johansen, L., Graham, T.& Saltin, B. (1993). Lactate and H+
effluxes from human skeletal muscle. J Physiol., 462, 115-33.
Bangsbo, J., Graham, T., Johansen, L.& Saltin, B. (1994). Muscle lactate
metabolism in recovery from intense exhaustive exercise: impact of light
exercise. J Appl Physiol.,77(4),1890-1895.
Beckett, K.& Steigbigel, B.A. (1993). Effects of warm down techniques on the
removal of lactate acid following maximal human performance. J.
Swimming Research, 9, 32-35.
Barnett, A. (2006). Using recovery modalities between training sessions in
elite athletes, Does it help? Sports Med, 36, 781-796.
Savvas P. Tokmakidis, Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
36
Belcastro, A.& Bonen, A. (1975). Lactic acid removal rates during controlled
and uncontrolled recovery exercise. J Appl Physiol., 39(6), 932-936.
Bogdanis, G., Nevill, M., Boobis, L., Lakomy, H.& Nevill, A. (1995).
Recovery of power output and muscle metabolites following 30 s of
maximal sprint cycling in man. J Physiology., 482(2), 467-480.
Bogdanis, G., Nevill, M., Lakomy, H., Graham, C.& Louis G. (1996). Effects
of active recovery on power output during repeated maximal sprint
cycling. Eur J Appl Physiol., 74,461-469.
Bogdanis, G.C., Nevill, M.E., Boobis, L.H.& Lakomy, H.K. (1996a).
Contribution of phosphocreatine. J Appl Physiol., 80(3),876-84.
Bogdanis, G., Nevill, M., Lakomy, H.K.& Boobis, L.H. (1998). Power output
and muscle metabolism during and following recovery from 10 and 20 s
of maximal sprint exercise in humans. Acta Physiol Scand, 163, 261-272.
Bonen, A. & Belcastro, A. (1976). Comparison of self-selected recovery
methods on lactic acid removal. Med Sci Sports Exerc., 8(3), 176-178.
Bonen, A., Campbell, C.J., Kirby, R.L.& Belcastro, A.N. (1978). Relationship
between slow-twitch muscle fibres and lactic acid removal. Can J Appl
Sports Sci., 3, 160-162.
Bond, V., Adams, R., Tearney, R., Gresham, K.& Ruff, W. (1991). Effects of
active and passive recovery on lactate removal and subsequent isokinetic
muscle function. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 31(3), 357-361.
Brooks, G.& Gaesser, G. (1980). End points of lactate and glucose metabolism
after exhaustive exercise. J Appl Physiol., 49(6), 1057-1069.
Brooks, G. (1986). The lactate shuttle during exercise and recovery. Med Sci
Sports Exerc., 18(3), 360-368.
Buchheit, M.,Cormie, P.,Abbiss, C.R.,Ahmaidi, S.,Nosaka, K.K.&Laursen,
P.B.(2009).Muscle deoxygenation during repeated sprint running: Effect
of active vs. passive recovery., Int J Sports Med., 30(6), 418-425.
Buchheit, M.,A. l., Haddad, H.,Chivot, A.,Leprêtre, P.M.,Ahmaidi,
S.&Laursen, P.B. (2010).Effect of in versus out-of-water recovery on
repeated swimming sprint performance. Eur J Appl Physiol., 108(2),321-
327.
Cazorla, G., Dufort, C.& Cervetti, J. (1983). The influence of active recovery
on blood lactate dissapearance after supramaximal swimming. In
International Series on Sport Sciences Vol 14, R. Nelson,& C.
Morehouse, (series Ed), Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming,P.
Hollander, P. Huijing, G. de Groot (eds), Biomechanics and Medicine in
Swimming, 244-250, Champain, Illinois, Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
37
Casey, A.,Constantin-Teodosiu, D.,Howell, S.,Hultman, E.&Greenhaff, P.L.
(1996). Metabolic response of type I and II muscle fibers during repeated
bouts of maximal exercise in humans. Am J Physiol., 271,E38-43.
Castagna, C., Abt, G., Manzi, V., Annino, G., Padua, E.& D'Ottavio, S.
(2008). Effect of recoveryJ Strength Cond Res., 22(3), 923-929.
Choi, D., Cole, K.J., Goodpaster, B.H., Fink, W.J.& Costill, D.L. (1994).
Effect of passive. Med Sci Sports Exerc., 26(8),992-996.
Connolly, D., Brennan, K.& Lauzon, C. (2003). Effects of active versus
passive recovery on power output during repeated bouts of short term,
high intensity exercise. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 2, 47-51.
Del Coso, J., Hamouti, N., Aguardo-Jimenez, R.& Mora-Rodriguez, R. (2010).
Restoration of blood pH between repeated bouts of high-intensity
exercise: effects of various active-recovery protocols. Eur J Appl
Physiol.,108,523-532.
Delp, M.D.& Laughlin, M.H. (1998). Regulation of skeletal muscle. Acta
Physiol Scand, 162(3),411-419.
Denadai, B., Guglielmo, L.& Denadai, M. (2000). Effect of exercise mode on
the blood lactate removal during recovery of high-intensity exercise.
Biology of Sport, 17,37-45.
Dorado, C., Sanchis-Moysi, J.& Galbet, J.A.L. (2004). Effects of recovery
mode on performance, O2 uptake, and O2 deficit during high-intensity
intermittent exercise. Can J App. Physiol, 29(3), 227-244.
Dupont, G., Moalla, W., Matran, R. & Berthoin, S. (2007). Effect of short
recovery intensities on the performance during two wingate tests. Med Sci
Sports Exerc.,39,1170-1176.
Essen, B., Pernow, B., Gollnick, P.& Saltin, B. (1975). Muscle glycogen
content and lactate uptake in exercising muscles. In H. Howald,& J.R.
Poortmans, (eds),Metabolic adaptations to prolonged physical exercise,
130-134, Basel, Karger.
Ettema, G.&Lorås, H.W.(2009). Efficiency in cycling: a review. Eur J Appl
Physiol, 106(1), 1-14.
Fairchild, T., Armstrong, A., Rao, A., Liu, H., Lawrence, S.& Fournier, P.
(2003). Glycogen synthesis in muscle fibers during active recovery from
intense exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc., 35(4), 595-602.
Felix, S., Manos, T., Jarvis, A., Jensen, B.& Hardley, S. (1997). Swimming
performance following different recovery protocols in female collegiate
swimmers. J. Swimming Research, 12, 1-6.
Savvas P. Tokmakidis, Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
38
Fournier, P., Fairchild, T., Ferreira L.& Brau, L. (2004). Post-exercise muscle
glycogen repletion in the extreme: effect of food absence and active
recovery. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 3,139-146.
Gaitanos, G., Williams, C., Boobis, L.& Brooks S. (1993). Human muscle
metabolism during intermittent maximal exercise. J Appl Physiol., 75(2),
712-719.
Gisolfi, C., Robinson, S.& Turrell, E. (1966). Effects of aerobic work
performed during recovery from exhausting work. J Appl Physiol, 21(6),
1767-1772.
Gladden, L.B. (2004). Lactate metabolism: a new paradigm for the third
millenium. J Physiol, 558,1, 5-30.
Gollnick, P., Warwick, B.& Hodgson, D. (1986). Exercise intensity, training,
diet, lactate concentration in muscle and blood. Med Sci Sports Exercise,
18(3), 334-340.
Greenhaff, P., Nevill, M., Soderlund, K., Bodin, K., Boobis, L., Williams, C.&
Hultman, E. (1994). The metabolic responses of human type I and II
muscle fibres during maximal treadmill sprinting. J Physiol, 478,1, 149-
155.
Greenwood, J., Moses, E., Bernardino, M., Gaesser, G.& Weltman, A. (2008).
Intensity of exercise recovery,blood lactate disappearance, and subsequent
swimming performance.J Sports Sci., 26(1), 29-34.
Hargreaves, M., McKenna. M., Jenkins, D., Warmington, S., Li, J.& Snow, R.,
et al. (1998). Muscle metabolites and performance during high-intensity,
intermittent exercise. J Appl Physiol, 84(5), 1687-1691.
Haseler, L.,Hogan, M. & Richardson R. (1999).Skeletal muscle
phosphocreatine recovery in exercise-trained humans is dependent on O2
availability. J Appl Physiol, 86(6), 2013-2018.
Hogan, M.C., Richardson, R.S.& Haseler, L.J. (1999). Human muscle
performanceJ Appl Physiol, 86(4),1367-1373.
Hermansen, L. & Stensvold, I. (1972). Production and removal of lactate
during exercise in man. Acta Physiol Scand, 86, 191-201.
Hermansen, L. & Vaage, O. (1977). Lactate disappearance and glycogen
synthesis in human muscle after maximal exercise. Am J Physiol, 233,
E422-E429.
Hildebrandt, W., Schutze, H.& Stegemann, J. (1992). Cardiovascular
limitations of active recovery from strenuous exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol,
64, 250-257.
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
39
Holmer, I., Stein, E., Saltin, B., Ekblom, B.& Astrand, P.O. (1974).
Hemodynamic and respiratory responses compared in swimming and
running. J Appl Physiol, 37(1), 49-54.
Issekutz, B., Shaw, W.& Issekutz, A. (1976). Lactate metabolism in resting
and exercising dogs. J Appl Physiol, 40(3), 312-319.
Jemni, M., Sands, W., Friemel, F.& Delamarche, P. (2003). Effect of active
and passive recovery on blood lactate and performance during simulated
competition in high level gymnasts. Can J Appl Physiol, 28(2), 240-256.
Johnson, E., Hudson, T.& Greene,E. (1990). Left ventricular hemodynamics
during exercise recovery. J Appl Physiol, 69(1), 104-111.
King, M.& Duffield, R. (2009). The effects of recoveryJ Strength Cond Res.,
23(6),1795-1802.
Krukau, M., Volker, K.& Liesen H. (1987). The influence of sport-specific
and sport-unspecific recovery on lactate-behaviour after anaerobic
swimming.Int J Sports Med, 8,142.
Lane, K.N.& Wenger, H.A. (2004). Effect of selected recoveryJ Strength
Cond Res., 18(4),855-860.
Lau, S., Berg, K., Latin, R.W.& Noble, J. (2001). Comparison of active and
passiveJ Strength Cond Res., 15(3),367-371.
Laughlin, H.& Armstrong P. (1985). Muscle blood flow during locomotory
exercise. Ex Sports Sci Rev., 13, 95-136.
Lindinger, M., Heigenhauser, G., McKelvie, R.& Jones, N. (1990). Role of
nonworking muscle on blood metabolites and ions with intense
intermittent exercise. Am J Physiol., 258(27), R1486-R1494.
Matsushique, K., Schneck, H., Hoianaski, L.& Franchini, E. (2007).
Performance in all-out intermittent short-duration exercise bouts: Active
vs passive recovery. Rev. Bras. Cineantropom. Desempenho Hum, 9,37-43
(article in Spanish, English abstract)
Maxwell, N.S., Castle, P. C. & Spencer, M. (2008). Effect of recoveryJ Sci
Med Sport, 11(5),491-499.
McAinch, A., Febbraio, M., Parkin, J., Zhao, Z., Tangalakis, K., Stojanovska,
L.& Carey, M. (2004). Effects of active versus passive recovery on
metabolism and performance during subsequent exercise. International
Journal of Sports Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 14,185-196.
McGrail, J., Bonen, A.& Belcastro, A. (1978). Dependence of lactate removal
on muscle metabolism in man. Eur J Appl Physiol, 39, 89-97.
McEniery, C.M., Jenkins, D.G.& Barnett, C. (1997). The relationship. Eur J
Appl Physiol Occup Physiol, 75(5),462-426.
Savvas P. Tokmakidis, Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
40
McLoughlin, P., McCaffrey, N.& Moynihan, J.B. (1991). Gentle exercise. Eur
J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol, 62(4),274-278.
McLellan, T. & Skinner, J. (1982). Blood lactate removal during active
recovery related to the aerobic threshold. Int J Sports Med, 3, 224-229.
McMaster, W., Stoddard, T.& Duncan, W. (1989). Enhancement of lactate
recovery by continuous sub-maximal swimming. J Swimming Research,
5(2), 19-21.
McMahon, S. & Jenkins, D. (2002). Factors affecting the rate of
phosphocreatine resynthesis following intense exercise. Sports Med,
32,761-784.
McMurray, R. (1969). Effects of body position and immersion on recovery
after swimming exercise. Research Quarterly, 40(4), 738-742.
Mika, A.,Mika, P.,Fernhall, B.&Unnithan, V.B.(2007). Comparison of
recovery strategies on muscle performance after fatiguing exercise. Am J
Phys Med Rehabil, 86(6),474-481.
Pascoe, D.D.& Gladden, L.B. (1996). Muscle glycogen. Sports Med, 21(2),98-
118.
Peters-Futre,E.M.,Noakes, T.D.,Raine, R.I.&Terblanche, S.E. (1987). Muscle
glycogen repletion during active postexercise recovery. Am J Physiol,
253,E305-311.
Reaburn, P.R.& Mackinnon L.T. (1990). Blood lactate responses in older
swimmers during active and passive recovery following maximal sprint
swimming. Eur J Appl Physiol, 61, 246-250.
Rowel, L. (1993). Human Cardiovascular Control. OxfordUniversity Press.
Sahlin, K., Harris, R.& Hultman, E. (1979). Resynthesis of creatine phosphate
in human muscle after exercise in relation to intramuscular pH and
availability of oxygen. Scand. J Clin Lab Invest, 39, 551-558.
Sairyo, K., Iwanaga, K., Yoshida, N., Mishiro, T., Terai, T.& Sasa, T., et al.
(2003). Effects of active recovery under a decreasing work load following
intense muscular exercise on intramuscular energy metabolism. Int J
Sports Med, 24, 179-182.
Siebers, L.& McMurray, R. (1981). Effects of swimming and walking on
exercise recovery and subsequent swim performance. Research Quarterly,
52(1),68-75.
Signorile, J.F., Ingalls, C.& Tremblay, L. (1993). The effects of active and
passive recovery on short-term high intensity power output. Can J Appl
Phys., 18(1), 31-42.
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
41
Sjogaard, G. (1987). Muscle fatigue. In P. Marconnet, & P. Komi, (Eds)
Medicine Sport Sci, Vol. 26, Muscular Function in Exercise and
Traiming, 98-109, Basel: Karger.
Smith, P.M., Doherty, M.& Price, M.J. (2006). The effect of crank rate on
physiological responses and exerciseInt J Sports Med, 27(3),199-204.
Spencer, M., Bishop, D., Dawson, B., Goodman, C.& Duffield, R. (2006).
Metabolism and performance in repeated cycle sprints: Active versus
Passive recovery, Med Sci Sports Exerc.,38(8), 1492-1499.
Spencer, M., Dawson, B., Goodman, C., Dascombe, B.& Bishop, D. (2008).
Performance and metabolism in repeated sprint exercise: effect of
recovery intensity. Eur J Appl Physiol,103,545-552.
Spierer, D.K., Goldsmith, R., Baran, D., Hryniewicz, K.& Katz, S. (2004).
Effects of active vs. passive recovery on work performed during serial
supramaximal exercise tests. Int J Sports Med, 25,109-114.
Stamford, B.A., Weltman, A., Moffatt, R.& Sady, S. (1981). Exercise recovery
above and below anaerobic threshold following maximal work. J Appl
Physiol, 51(4), 840-844.
Stanley, W.C.,Gertz, E.W.,Wisneski, J.A.,Morris, D.L.,Neese, R.A.&Brooks,
G.A. (1985). Systemic lactate kinetics during graded exercise in man. Am
J Physiol, 249, E595-602.
Suzuki, M.& Bonde-Peterson, F. (1983). Heart Rate and muscle hyperaemia in
leg muscles after sprint running. Eur J Appl Physiol, 51, 183-194.
Taoutaou, Z., Granier, P., Mercier, B., Mercier, J., Ahmaidi, S.& Prefaut C.
(1996). Lactate kinetics during passive and partially active recovery in
endurance and sprint athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol, 73, 465-470.
Tessitore, A., Meeusen, R., Cortis, C.& Capranica, L. (2007). Effects of
different recoveryJ Strength Cond Res., 21(3),745-50.
Tessitore, A., Meeusen, R., Pagano, R., Benvenuti, C., Tiberi, M.& Capranica,
L. (2008). Effectiveness of active versus passiveJ Strength Cond Res.,
22(5),1402-12.
Thiriet, P., Gozal, D., Wouassi, D., Oumarou, T., Gelas, H.& Lacour, J.
(1993). The effect of various recovery modalities on subsequent
performance, in consecutive supramaximal exercise. J Sports Med Phys
Fitn, 33(2), 118-129.
Tokmakidis, S.P., Léger, L.& Pilianidis, T. (1998). Failure to obtain a unique
threshold on the blood lactate concentration curve during exercise. Eur J
Appl Physiol,77,333-342.
Savvas P. Tokmakidis, Argyris G. Toubekis and Ilias Smilios
42
Trump, M., Heigenhauser, G., Putman, C.& Spriet, L. (1996). Importance of
phosphocreatine during intermittent maximal cycling. J Appl Physiol,
80(5), 1574-1580.
Toubekis, A., Douda, H.& Tokmakidis, S.P. (2005). Influence of different rest
intervals during active or passive recovery on repeated sprint swimming
performance. Eur J Appl Physiol,93(5-6), 694-700.
Toubekis, A., Smilios, I., Bogdanis, G., Mavridis, G.& Tokmakidis, S.P.
(2006). Effect of different intensities of active recovery on sprint
swimming performance. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab, 31,709-716.
Toubekis, A., Peyrebrune, M., Nevill, M.E.& Lakomy, H.K. (2008). Effects of
active and passive recovery on performance during repeated sprint
swimming. J Sports Sci.,26,1497-1505.
Toubekis, A., Tsolaki, A., Smilios, I., Douda, H., Kourtesis, T.& Tokmakidis,
S.P. (2008a). Swimming performance after passive and active recovery of
various durations. Int J Sports Phys Perf., 3,375-386.
Toubekis, A., Adam, G., Douda, H., Antoniou, P., DouroundosI.& Tokmakidis
S.P. (2010). Repeated sprint swimming performance after low or high
intensity active and passive recoveries. J Strength Cond Res,(in press). Jan
21. [Epub ahead of print].
Tsami, A., Toubekis, A., Douda, H., Gourgoulis, V.& Tokmakidis S.P. (2006).
Effects of active recovery on swimming performance observed 24
hoursafter a high intensity training session. Exercise and Society: Journal
of Sport Science, 42, 27-34 (in Greek, English abstract available).
Watts, P.B., Daggett, M., Gallagher, P.& Wilkins, B. (2000). Metabolic
response during sport rock climbing and the effects of active versus
passiveInt J Sports Med, 21(3),185-190.
Weltman, A., Stamford, B.A., Moffatt, R.J.& Katch, L.V. (1977). Exercise
recovery, Lactate removal, and Subsequent high intensity exercise
performance. Research Quarterly, 48(4),787-796.
Westerblad, H. & Allen, D. (2003).Cellular mechanisms of skeletal muscle
fatigue. Adv Exp Med Biol., 538, 563-570.
Wilcock, I.M.,Cronin, J.B.&Hing, W.A. (2006). Physiological response to
water immersion: a method for sport recovery?Sports Med, 36(9),747-65.
Active versus Passive Recovery: Metabolic Limitations and
43
low or high intensity active and passive recoveries. J Strength Cond Res,
(in press). Jan 21. [Epub ahead of print].
Tsami, A., Toubekis, A., Douda, H., Gourgoulis, V. & Tokmakidis S. P.
(2006). Effects of active recovery on swimming performance observed 24
hours after a high intensity training session. Exercise and Society: Journal
of Sport Science, 42, 27-34 (in Greek, English abstract available).
Watts, P. B., Daggett, M., Gallagher, P. & Wilkins, B. (2000). Metabolic
response during sport rock climbing and the effects of active versus
passive recovery. Int J Sports Med, 21(3), 185-190.
Weltman, A., Stamford, B. A., Moffatt, R. J. & Katch, L. V. (1977). Exercise
recovery, Lactate removal, and Subsequent high intensity exercise
performance. Research Quarterly, 48(4), 787-796.
Westerblad, H. & Allen, D. (2003). Cellular mechanisms of skeletal muscle
fatigue. Adv Exp Med Biol., 538, 563-570.
Wilcock, I. M., Cronin, J. B. & Hing, W. A. (2006). Physiological response to
water immersion: a method for sport recovery? Sports Med, 36(9), 747-65.
... El descenso del PH sanguíneo (acidez) reduce la velocidad de recuperación de la fosfocreatina (van den Broek et. al. 2007) y (Tokmakidis et. al. 2011), por lo tanto, se debe hacer lo posible por evitar la participación del sistema anaeróbico láctico durante la serie de ejercicio; para ello, las series no deberán superar los 6 segundos de duración (Baz 2010). ...
... ceso, se lleva a cabo en el hígado y los compuestos que pueden transformarse en glucosa son: alanina (resultante de la degradación proteica), glicerol (resultante de la degradación de triglicéridos), piruvato y lactato (resultantes de la glucólisis) ( Cuando se trata de la gluconeogénesis del lactato, el proceso recibe el nombre de "ciclo de Cori" (Tokmakidis et. al. 2011 ...
... l 2004. El ejercicio anaeróbico intenso, libera gran cantidad de hidrógeno (H+), lo que aumenta la acidez de las fibras musculares, es decir, reduce su PH (Roussel et al. 2000), (Burnes et. al. 2008), (Lindinger & Waller 2008) 2015); retardando también, la recuperación de la fosfocreatina luego de un esfuerzo intenso (van den Broek et. al. 2007) y (Tokmakidis et. al. 2011). De esta manera, la acidificación de la fibra muscular, reduce la capacidad contráctil del musculo (Chase & Kushmerick 1988), (Westerblad & Allen 1992), (Coast et al. 1995), (Wilmore & Costill 2004), (Alonso-Curiel et. al. 2012) ...
... Today, there is still no single effective strategy for speeding recovery, especially following a short-to middle-distance (50-200 m) swimming event. Active recovery (AR) speeds up the removal of blood lactate compared with passive recovery (PR) 3,10 ; however, PR is more efficient in facilitating muscle reoxygenation 11,12 and phosphocreatine restoration 13 compared with AR. Regardless of the type of recovery, the effect on subsequent swimming performance remains controversial. ...
... Regardless of the type of recovery, the effect on subsequent swimming performance remains controversial. 10,[13][14][15] These different results may be related to the differences in the intensity and duration of recovery and mode of exercise used between studies. ...
... This finding is not surprising and consistent with previous research showing that AR could improve blood flow to the muscle. 3,10 Nevertheless, these results should be interpreted with caution since the blood flow and volume in the muscle might be influenced by other factors such as lower limb movement, contraction, pressure on the muscle, and hydrostatic pressure of water. 6,21 Apart from changes in muscle oxygenation, there was a moderate increase in blood lactate levels (peaked around 6 mmol/L) immediately following a 200-m front crawl swim, regardless of recovery conditions. ...
Article
Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of 3 recovery protocols on muscle oxygenation, blood lactate, and subsequent performance during a 200-m repeated swim session. Methods: Twelve collegte swimmers completed 3 sessions of 2 consecutive 200-m front-crawl trials separated by 1 of 3 recovery protocols: a 15-minute active recovery (AR), a 15-minute passive recovery (PR), and a combination of 5-minute AR and 10-minute PR (CR) in a counterbalanced design. Tissue saturation index at biceps femoris, blood lactate concentration, arterial oxygen saturation, and heart rate were measured at rest, immediately after the trial, and at 5, 10, and 15 minutes of recovery. Two-way analysis of variance (recovery × time) with repeated measures was used to determine measurement variables. A level of significance was set at P < .05. Results: No significant changes in swimming time were observed between trials (AR: 156.79 [4.09] vs 157.79 [4.23] s, CR: 156.50 [4.89] vs 155.55 [4.86] s, PR: 156.54 [4.70] vs 156.30 [4.52] s) across recovery conditions. Interestingly, tissue saturation index rapidly declined immediately after a 200-m swim and then gradually returned to baseline, with a greater value observed during CR compared with AR and PR after 15-minute recovery (P = .04). These changes were concomitant with significant reductions in blood lactate and heart rate during the recovery period (P = .00). Conclusion: The CR in the present study was more effective in enhancing muscle reoxygenation after a 200-m swim compared with AR and PR, albeit its beneficial effect on subsequent performance warrants further investigation.
... The intensity of the sprints was established as vV̇O 2 max, due to previous studies that demonstrated the capacity of this parameter to generate cardiorespiratory, metabolic, and neuromuscular disorders, besides being a strong stimulus for increasing the power and aerobic capacities of subjects (8). In addition, the intensity of the active recovery was established at vVT 1 because of the increase in the oxidative contribution provided, mediated by greater mitochondrial involvement and possibly greater removal of the lactate from its intracellular reutilization as an energetic fuel (33). ...
... Thus, knowing that PCr resynthesis is an oxygen-dependent process (17), some studies have hypothesized that active recoveries induce an increase in blood flow and oxygen availability, which consequently facilitate the resynthesis of PCr (28,33). However, no studies have presented evidence to confirm a causal relationship between increased blood flow, induced by active recovery, on better PCr resynthesis and H 1 buffering (33). ...
... Thus, knowing that PCr resynthesis is an oxygen-dependent process (17), some studies have hypothesized that active recoveries induce an increase in blood flow and oxygen availability, which consequently facilitate the resynthesis of PCr (28,33). However, no studies have presented evidence to confirm a causal relationship between increased blood flow, induced by active recovery, on better PCr resynthesis and H 1 buffering (33). However, other studies have shown that active recoveries decrease muscle oxygenation and myoglobin oxygen content, which leads to increased deoxyhemoglobin levels, lower PCr resynthesis, lower H 1 removal, and consequently reduced performance (6,13). ...
Article
Full-text available
Germano, MD, Sindorf, MAG, Crisp, AH, Braz, TV, Brigatto, FA, Nunes, AG, Verlengia, R, Moreno, MA, Aoki, MS, and Lopes, CR. Effect of different recoveries during HIIT sessions on metabolic and cardiorespiratory responses and sprint performance in healthy men. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2019- The purpose of this study was to investigate how the type (passive and active) and duration (short and long) recovery between maximum sprints affect blood lactate concentration, O 2 consumed, the time spent at high percentages of V ̇ O 2 max, and performance. Participants were randomly assigned to 4 experimental sessions of high-intensity interval training exercise. Each session was performed with a type and duration of the recovery (short passive recovery-2 minutes, long passive recovery [LPR-8 minutes], short active recovery-2 minutes, and long active recovery [LAR-8 minutes]). There were no significant differences in blood lactate concentration between any of the recoveries during the exercise period (p > 0.05). The LAR presented a significantly lower blood lactate value during the postexercise period compared with LPR (p < 0.01). The LPR showed a higher O 2 volume consumed in detriment to the active protocols (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in time spent at all percentages of V ̇ O 2 max between any of the recovery protocols (p > 0.05). The passive recoveries showed a significantly higher effort time compared with the active recoveries (p < 0.001). Different recovery does not affect blood lactate concentration during exercise. All the recoveries permitted reaching and time spent at high percentages of V ̇ O 2 max. Therefore, all the recoveries may be efficient to generate disturbances in the cardiorespiratory system.
... "Metabolic fatigue results from a reduced production of ATP linked to enzyme changes, changes in membrane transportmechanisms, and changes in substrate availability" (Plowman & Smith, 2011). Proses kelelahan seringkali terjadi pada saat latihan intensitas tinggi, "During training of high intensity, athletes experience fatigue…" (Tokmakidis dkk., 2011) dan pada kompetisi yang menjalani pertandingan berulang-ulang dengan jeda waktu yang singkat (satu hari atau kurang dari 24 jam), "…athletes often participate in repeated events within a competition" (Tokmakidis., 2011). Pada akhirnya, kelelahan akan menyebabkan penurunan performa. ...
... Laktat adalah salah satu penyebab terjadinya kelelahan, "In the past, lactate was believed to be a factor contributing to fatigue…" (Tokmakidis., 2011). Hal tersebut berlandaskan pada dua hal. ...
... Recovery aktif adalah metode yang paling efektif untuk meeliminasi laktat dikarenakan akan mengaktifkam muscle blood flow yang akan memfasilitasi pengkonversian laktat menjadi energi. "…Active Recovery may increase the efflux and flow of lactate to other tissues for oxidation" Lindinger (dalam Tokmakidis, 2011 (Tokmakidis, 2011). ...
Article
Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk membandingkan eliminasi laktat menggunakan metode recovery aktif (jogging) dan recovery aktif (jogging) plus masase . 21 mahasiswa ilmu keolahragaan angkatan 2015 berpartisipasi menjadi sampel penelitian ini. Desain penelitian yang digunakan adalah Randomized Pretest Posttest Control Group Design. Sampel dibagi kedalam tiga kelompok berdasarkan perlakuan yang diberikan , yaitu kelompok recoveri aktif (jogging), recovery aktif (jogging) plus masase, dan kontrol. Setiap kelompok melakukan tes Cunningham and Faulkner untuk merangsang terjadinya akumulasi laktat. Setelah itu, setiap kelompok diberikan perlakuan recovery aktif (jogging), recovery aktif (jogging) plus masase dan kontrol (tidak diberikan perlakuan). Durasi recovery selama 15 menit setiap kelompoknya dengan intensitas sedang 55-69% denyut nadi maksimal. Hasilnya, setiap kelompok mengalami eliminasi laktat yang signifikan setelah diberikan perlakuan dengan presentase laktat yang tereliminasi 46.02% (jogging), 26.42% (jogging plus masasei), 22.93% (kontrol). Selain itu, terdapat perbedaan signifikan eliminasi laktat (0.035 < 0.05). hasil uji lanjut, perbedaan eliminasi laktat terjadi antara kelompok jogging dengan kelompok kontrol yang signifikan (0.049 < 0.05) sedangkan kelompok joging dengan joging plus masase joging plus masase dengan control tidak signifikan (0.071 > 0.05. Dengan demikian, dapat dinyatakan bahwa metode recovery aktif jogging dan recoveri aktif jogging plus masase memiliki pengaruh yang sama terhadap eliminasi asam laktat.
... Ronglan et al. (2006) study have demonstrated that successive matches adversely affect team-sport athletes and reduce performance. Recovery is a crucial factor for within the muscle, inducing muscle fatigue and deterioration of performance (Lattier et al., 2004;Tokmakidis et al., 2011). AR reduces this waste metabolite and, with an associated increase in blood flow throughout the body, may increase the metabolism of waste substrates produced during exercise (Halson, 2013;Sharma et al., 2017;Tokmakidis et al., 2011;Wilcock, 2005). ...
... Recovery is a crucial factor for within the muscle, inducing muscle fatigue and deterioration of performance (Lattier et al., 2004;Tokmakidis et al., 2011). AR reduces this waste metabolite and, with an associated increase in blood flow throughout the body, may increase the metabolism of waste substrates produced during exercise (Halson, 2013;Sharma et al., 2017;Tokmakidis et al., 2011;Wilcock, 2005). PR refers to inactivity post-exercise and the intrinsic return of the body to homeostasis (Sanders, 1996). ...
Article
Full-text available
Abstract Background: Athletes, who engage in combat sports, perform often several matches in a day during competitions. For this reason, recovery is a very important factor between matches. There are many different recovery methods applied by athletes and it is very important to know which one is more suitable for anaerobic performance. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different recovery methods on anaerobic performance in combat sports athletes. Methods: Thirteen experienced inter�national level elite combat sports athletes (age 20.5 ± 1.6 years, body height 175.3 ± 4.5 cm, body mass 73.8 ± 7.9 kg, body fat 11.4 ± 3.9%, training experience 7.5 ± 3.4 years) have participated voluntarily in this study. Athletes were involved in passive recov�ery (PR), cold water immersion (CWI) and active recovery (AR) methods after countermovement jump and Wingate anaerobic test. Also, body temperature and rating of perceived exertion were evaluated. In this study, a randomized crossover design was used and applications lasted three days. All measurements were performed at three different times (baseline, 1st and 2nd session) in a day. Two�way analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for statistical analysis. Results: For the countermovement jump there was a significant increase after CWI and AR. A significant decrease was found in the Fatigue index after CWI recovery. Body temperature was increased after CWI, AR, and PR. Rating of perceived exertion has increased in AR. Moreover, there were no significant differ�ences were found in peak power and mean power. Conclusions: The results indicate that during intermittent recovery, CWI positively impacted countermovement jump and fatigue index. Also, AR has positively affected countermovement jump performance, while negatively affected the rating of perceived exertion. Thus our findings suggest that 10 min of CWI and AR can be adopted in competi�tions when successive matches take place. Keywords: anaerobic power, cold water immersion, active recovery, passive recover
... Among these parameters, information about how the type of pause can influence adaptive processes has been investigated. In this perspective it is suggested that, better resynthesis of resting phosphocreatine, reduction of intramuscular pH, lactate removal, oxidative phosphorylation provides greater potential to achieve high percentages and spend greater time in high percentages of VO 2max (Thevenet et al., 2007, Spencer et al., 2008, Tokmakidis et al., 2011. ...
Article
Full-text available
The present study aimed to analyze different recovery times on psychophysiological responses during HIIT sessions using body weight. All volunteers performed three sessions of HIIT using body weight with different recovery times of 60 s, 30 s, and 15 s. The recovery times were randomly assigned with an interval of 48 hours between sessions. The following variables were assessed: Heart rate (HR), perceived effort (SPE), perception of recovery (SPR), Total number of movements in the session (TAM), and lactate concentrations. There were no differences in absolute (p = 0.057) and relative (p = 0.066) HR between the 60 s and 30 s sessions, however the values of absolute (p = 0.001) and relative (p = 0.002) in the 15 s session were greater than 60 s. Considering the number of movements, the session using the 15 s recovery period (p = 0.001) presented lower values than sessions using 60 s and 30 s which did not differ from each other. The SPE values of the 60 s session were lower (p = 0.028; p < 0.001) than the 30 s and 15 s sessions, respectively, which differed in order (p < 0.001). The training load of the 60 s and 30 s sessions did not differ (p = 0.649) from each other, but both were lower (p = 0.001) than the 15 s session. The findings of the present study show that the variables SPE, SPR, and TAM for the 15 s recovery period had a significantly different response than the 60 s and 30s recovery, however, the lactate concentration between the different conditions (60 s, 30 s, and 15 s) after the training session did not produce a significantly different result. Keywords: HIIT, whole body, interval training, time of recovery. Resumen. El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo analizar diferentes tiempos de recuperación de las respuestas psicofisiológico du-rante sesiones de HIIT utilizando el peso corporal. Todos los voluntarios realizaron tres sesiones de HIIT usando el peso corporal con diferentes tiempos de recuperación de 60 s, 30 s y 15 s. Los tiempos de recuperación se asignaron aleatoriamente con un intervalo de 48 horas entre sesiones. Se evaluaron las siguientes variables: frecuencia cardíaca (FC), esfuerzo percibido (SPE), percepción de recu-peración (SPR), número total de movimientos en la sesión (TAM) y concentración de lactato. No hubo diferencias en la FC absoluta (p = 0,057) y relativa (p = 0,066) entre las sesiones de 60 y 30 segundos, sin embargo, los valores de FC absoluta (p = 0,001) y relativa (p = 0,002) en la sesión de 15 segundos fueron mayores que años 60 Considerando el número de movimientos, la sesión que utilizó el período de recuperación de 15 s (p = 0,001) presentó valores más bajos que las sesiones de 60 s y 30 s que no difirieron entre sí. Los valores de SPE de la sesión de 60 s fueron menores (p = 0,028; p < 0,001) que los de las sesiones de 30 s y 15 s, respectivamente, que diferían en el orden (p < 0,001). La carga de entrenamiento de las sesiones de 60 s y 30 s no difirió (p = 0,649) entre sí, pero ambas fueron menores (p = 0,001) que la sesión de 15 s. Los hallazgos del presente estudio muestran que las variables SPE, SPR y TAM para el período de recuperación de 15 s tuvieron una respuesta significativamente diferente a la recuperación de 60 y 30 s, sin embargo, la concentración de lactato entre las diferentes condiciones (60 s, 30 s y 15 s) después de la recuperación sesión de entrenamiento no produjo un resultado significativamente diferente. Palabras clave: HIIT, cuerpo entero, entrenamiento interválico, tiempo de recuperación. Fecha recepción: 09-03-23. Fecha de aceptación: 18-09-23 Alexandre Fernandes Machado
... According to a traditional study by Buchheit e Laursen (2103), there are at least nine parameters that can be used in the prescription of HIIT, these include: the intensity, stimulus duration, modality/type of exercise, duration of recovery intervals and the types of recovery. Among these parameters, the type of recovery can influence adaptive processes such as better resynthesis of PCr (Spencer etal., 2006), reduction of intramuscular pH (Spencer et al., 2006), lactate removal, oxidative phosphorylation (Tokmakidis et al., 2011), provide greater potential to achieve high percentages and spend greater time in high percentages of VO 2 max (Thevenet et al., 2007), influence the energy demand, muscle fatigue etiology and voluntary time to exhaustion (Zafeiridis et al., 2010). Influences that can change the characteristics and objective of the training session and that can also influence the results achieved. ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of two recovery types on the training parameters in high intensity interval training (HIIT) sessions using body weight training, the recovery included active and passive. Participating in this study, twenty male voluntaries performed two acute single sessions with a break between sessions of 7 days, each training session, was composed by (20-min duration sessions of a HIIT whole body training, consisting of 20 sets of 30 seconds at stimulus all-out of intensities of high-intensity interval training using different types of recovery, the time of duration by recovery was 30 seconds. Each cycle of exercise consisted of 30 seconds of "maximum intensity" stimulation followed by 30 seconds of recovery (active or passive). The following parameters were evaluated: heart rate, perceived exertion, perceived recovery, lactate concentration, feeling scale and number of movements in total. In the present study no differences were found in relative heart rates, perceived exertion, and lactate concentrations between protocols. No differences (p>0.05) were found on number total movements (Active: 695±52, Passive: 723±56) between protocols. Additionally, significant reductions (p<0.0001) on feeling scale were found after the exercise session using Active (Before: 4.35±0.58, After:0.85±1.22) and Passive (Before:4.30±0.80, After:1.00±1.45) recovery type, no differences were found between protocols. There were no differences (p<0.05) found for the respective area under the curve for rate of perceived recovery between protocols (Active:59.70±18.69, Passive: 64.58±14.89).
Article
Full-text available
Latar belakang dan tujuan dari penelitian yaitu, untuk mengkaji apakah ada perbedaan pengaruh recovery jogging dengan recovery dinamis terhadap pulih asal denyut nadi. Metode yang digunakan pada penelitian ini adalah kausal komparatif, dan teknik pengambilan data dengan pusposive sampeling. Sampel dibagi menjadi 2 tim jogging dengan recovery dinamis. Sampel berjumlah 10 orang dan terdiri dari 2 tim futsal laki – laki yang berusia 18 – 24 tahun. Instrumen pada penelitian menggunakan alat ukur tes bantu heart rate polar Ft 7. Tujuan alat heart rate monitor ( Hrm ) adalah untuk memonitor detak jantung sampel pada tes penelitian games futsal secara langsung, atau real time, menampilkan jumlah detak jantung per menit secara langsung, selama beraktivitas jasmani. Berdasarkan hasil pengolah data menunjukan tidak ada perbedaan, bila dilihat dan dijelaskan dari hasil deskriptif terjadi perbedaan hasil angka data yaitu, hasil penelitian recovery istirahat aktif jogging 11.0 dan recovery istirahat aktif dinamis 31.20. Penulusuran atau penelitian lebih lanjut yang spesifik dan sistematis harus diperlukan karena untuk akurasi hasil data penelitian. Disarankan agar dilakukan tes kebugaran Vo2 max lebih dahulu karena untuk mengetahui kondisi fisik sampel penelitian.
Book
Full-text available
The purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of different types of recovery on physiological responses during repeated sprints in swimming. Twelve male well trained swimmers (age: 18 ± 3,5 y; height, 182 ± 15,4 cm; body mass, 65 ± 15 kg) performed 6 repetitions of 50 m sprints with maximum effort and 4 min of rest under three different conditions. At the first condition the rest interval between repetitions included passive recovery, at the second active recovery and at the third mixed recovery which consisted of one minute passive, two minutes active and one minute passive recovery. During active recovery the subjects swam at an intensity corresponding to 75% of critical velocity. Stroke rate, heart rate at the end and the time to complete each 50 m sprint were recorded. In addition, blood lactate concentrations were measured after the first repetition, and before and after the third and the sixth repetitions. Data analysis showed that performance decreased at all conditions and was lower at the second to the sixth repetition compared with first repetition (p< 0.05). The decrease of performance was higher with passive recovery at the sixth repetition compared to corresponding repetition with active and mixed recovery (p< 0.05). Blood lactate concentration increased both with three types of recovery after second to fifth sampling compared to first, although in passive recovery condition the concentration was higher (p< 0.05). Blood lactate concentrationς were higher with passive recovery compared to active and mixed recovery (p< 0.05) conditions. Heart rate was higher during the active recovery condition compared to passive recovery (p< 0.05). Stroke rate was higher with passive recovery in the second, the third and the fourth repetition as compared with active and mixed recovery. It appears that during 50 m repeated swimming sprints, passive recovery leads to greater decrease of performance compared to active and mixed recovery. Blood lactate concentrations are lower when active or mixed recoveries are applied. Heart rate is higher after active recovery compared to passive and mixed recoveries. Based on the above the application of active or mixed recovery is recommended when more than four repetitions of 50 m swimming sprints, with four minutes’ interval are executed
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of two recovery strategies between men's gymnastic events on blood lactate removal (BL) and performance as rated by expert “blind” judges. Twelve male gymnasts (21.8 + 2.4 years) participated. The sessions were composed of routine performances on the six Olympic events, which were separated by 10 min of recovery. All gymnasts performed two recovery protocols between events on separate days: Rest protocol: 10 min rest in a sitting position; Combined protocol: 5 min rest and 5 min self-selected active recovery. Three blood samples were taken at 2, 5 and 10 min following each event performance. Gymnasts produced moderate values of BL following each of the six events (2.2 to 11.6 mmol.1-1). There was moderate variability in BL values between events that could not be accounted for by the athlete’s event performance. Gymnasts showed higher BL concentration (p > .05) and significantly (p < .05) higher scoring performances (as rated by a panel of certified judges) when they used a combined recovery between gymnastic events rather than a passive recovery [DBL = 40.51% vs 28.76% (p < .05) of maximal BL and total score = 47.28 + 6.82 vs 38.39 + 7.55 (p < .05) respectively].
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of active recovery, on maximal and submaximal swimming performance when tested 24 hours after a high intensity training session. Ten well-trained swimmers aged 14.8±1.26 yrs, swam 400m and 50m at submaximal and maximum intensity respectively, 24 hours before (D1) and 24 hours after (D3) a two-hour intense swimming training (D2). All participants performed the tests of D1, D2 and D3 in two different cases, applying 15 minutes passive (PAS), or active recovery (ACT) at the end of D2. No significant differences were found between D1 and D3 concerning performance time, stroke length (SL) and stroke rate after ACT or PAS recovery (p >.05). Stroke length on the 400m test was decreased in D3 compared to D1 but the decrement was lower after ACT trial (PAS:2.6±2.6 vs ACT:1.2±2.6%, p<.05). After an intense training session, active recovery does not affect performance compared to passive recovery in a single high intensity effort performed 24 hours later, but may contribute to a better maintenance of stroke length in a submaximal swimming effort. Stroke length is an important factor for swimming performance during a race or a training session.
Article
Full-text available
ATP repletion following exhaustive exercise is approximated to be 90-95% complete in 3 minutes, and is crucial in the performance of short duration, high intensity work. Few studies appear to have used this 3-minute interval in the investigation of recovery modes, blood lactate accumulation and power output. Thus, our aim was to investigate changes in peak power (PP), average power (AP) and blood lactate during repeated bouts of high intensity, short duration cycling, comprising active and passive recovery modes lasting 3 minutes. Seven male cyclists (age 21.8±3.3 yrs, mass 73.0±3.8kgs, height 177.3±3.4cm) performed both an active (3 min at 80rpm & 1kg resistance) and a passive recovery (no work between bouts) protocol. Following a warm-up, subjects performed six 15-second maximal sprints against a fixed workload of 5.5kg. Mean PP across the six trials was 775±11.2Watts (W) and 772±33.4W for active and passive protocols respectively; whereas mean AP was 671±26.4W and 664±10.0W, respectively. Neither was significantly different. There was a significant difference within trials for both peak power and average power (p<0.05), with both values decreasing over time. However, the decrease was significantly smaller for both PP and AP values during the active recovery protocol (p<0.05). In the current study, variation in power output cannot be explained by lactate values, as values did not differ between the active and passive protocol (p=0.37). Lactate values did differ significantly between trials within protocols (p<0.05). The results of this study suggest that an active recovery of 3 minutes between high intensity, short duration exercise bouts significantly increases PP and AP compared to a passive recovery, irrespective of changes in blood lactate levels.
Article
Full-text available
Glycogen plays a major role in supporting the energy demands of skeletal muscles during high intensity exercise. Despite its importance, the amount of glycogen stored in skeletal muscles is so small that a large fraction of it can be depleted in response to a single bout of high intensity exercise. For this reason, it is generally recommended to ingest food after exercise to replenish rapidly muscle glycogen stores, otherwise one's ability to engage in high intensity activity might be compromised. But what if food is not available? It is now well established that, even in the absence of food intake, skeletal muscles have the capacity to replenish some of their glycogen at the expense of endogenous carbon sources such as lactate. This is facilitated, in part, by the transient dephosphorylation-mediated activation of glycogen synthase and inhibition of glycogen phosphorylase. There is also evidence that muscle glycogen synthesis occurs even under conditions conducive to an increased oxidation of lactate post-exercise, such as during active recovery from high intensity exercise. Indeed, although during active recovery glycogen resynthesis is impaired in skeletal muscle as a whole because of increased lactate oxidation, muscle glycogen stores are replenished in Type IIa and IIb fibers while being broken down in Type I fibers of active muscles. This unique ability of Type II fibers to replenish their glycogen stores during exercise should not come as a surprise given the advantages in maintaining adequate muscle glycogen stores in those fibers that play a major role in fight or flight responses.
Article
-Nine male subjects performed two bouts of 30-s maximal isokinetic cycling. Each bout of exercise was performed at 80 revolutions/min and was separated by 4 min of recovery. Mixed-muscle phosphocreatine (: PCr resynthesis during recovery (88.1 ±6.1%) was positively correlated with the restoration of total work production during bout 2 (r = 0.80, P < 0.05). During bout 1, ATP and PCr utilization were greater in type II compared with type I fibers (P < 0.01 and P< 0.05, respectively). The subsequent 4-min period of recovery was insufficient to allow total restoration of ATP and PCr in type II fibers, but restoration of ATP and PCr in type I fibers was almost complete. During the second bout of exercise, ATP and PCr utilization were reduced in type II fibers (P < 0.01), without a corresponding change in type I fibers, and performance was also significantly reduced. The reduction in work capacity observed during bout 2 may have been related to a slower resynthesis, and consequently a reduced availability, of ATP and PCr in type II fibers.
Article
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of exercise mode on the blood lactate removal during recovery of high-intensity exercise. Nine male individuals performed the following tests in order to determine the blood lactate removal: Running - 2×200 m, the subjects ran at their maximum capacity, and rested 2 min between each bout. Swimming - 2×50 m, the subjects swam at their maximum capacity, and rested 2 min between each bout. Each test was realized on different days with three recovery modes: passive (sitting down), swimming, or running. Recovery exercise intensity was corresponding to the aerobic threshold. All recovery activities lasted 30 min. The two forms of active recovery were initiated 2 min after the end of high-intensity exercise and lasted 15 min, and were followed by 13 min of seated rest. After 1,7,12,17, and 30 min of the end of high-intensity exercise, blood samples (25 μl) were collected in order to determine the blood lactate concentration. By linear regression, between the logarithm of lactate concentration and its respective time of recovery, the half-time of blood lactate removal (t1/2) was determined. Time of high-intensity exercise and the lactate concentration obtained in the 1st min of recovery were not different between running and swimming. Passive recovery (PR) following running (R-PR=25.5±4.3 min) showed a t1/2 significantly higher than PR after swimming (S-PR=18.6±4.3 min). The t1/2 of the sequences running-running (R-R=13.0 min), running-swimming (R-S=12.9±3.8 min), swimming-swimming (S-S=13.2±2.8 min), and swimming-running (S-R=8.1±1.3 min) were significantly lower than the t1/2 of the R-PR and S-PR. There was no difference between the t1/2 of the sequences R-R, R-S, and S-S. On the other hand, the sequence S-R showed a t1/2 significantly lower than the sequences S-S and R-R. It was concluded that the two forms of active recovery determine an increase in the blood lactate removal, regardless of the mode of high-intensity exercise performed previously. Active recovery performed by the muscle groups that were not previously fatigued, can improve the blood lactate removal.
Chapter
Lactate, although an end product of anaerobic glycolysis, is also a substrate for oxidative metabolism. Thus, it is well-known that lactate is taken up and oxidized by the myocardium at a rate proportional to the level in the blood [1]. It has also been demonstrated that lactate is taken up [2] and oxidized [3] by working skeletal muscle. In this regard, lactate is a suitable substrate since it can readily enter the cell and the aerobic pathways with minimum of molecular modification. An unanswered question is if the uptake of lactate may be influenced by the availability of glycogen in the working muscle. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between the relative production end uptake of lactate by human skeletal muscle during exercise at different glycogen levels of the skeletal muscle.