Content uploaded by Danny Lum
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Danny Lum on May 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Training & Testing26
Lum D et al. Swim Recovery and Run Performance … Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 26 – 30
accepted after revision
August 13, 2009
Bibliography
DOI http://dx.doi.org/
10.1055/s-0029-1239498
Published online:
November 11, 2009
Int J Sports Med 2010; 31:
26 – 30 © Georg Thieme
Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
ISSN 0172-4622
Correspondence
Dr. P. Peeling
The University of Western
Australia, School of Sport
Science, Exercise and Health
35 Stirling Hwy
6009 Crawley
Australia
Tel.: + 61 8 6488 1383
Fax: + 61 8 6488 1039
ppeeling@wais.org.au
Key words
● ▶ post-exercise
● ▶ hydrostatic pressure
● ▶ i n fl ammation
Eff ects of a Recovery Swim on Subsequent Running
Performance
Recently, water-based activities have become a
predominant method of post-exercise recovery
in team and endurance sports [5, 7, 14] . To date, it
has been shown that using active water-based
recovery removes BLa at a higher rate than walk-
ing [12] , can speed up the recovery process for
muscle strength and soreness [11] , and decreases
post-exercise psychological stress [13] . However,
in each of these studies, the water-based recov-
ery methods were implemented immediately
post-exercise, and only Siebers and McMurray
[12] measured subsequent exercise performance,
showing no benefi cial eff ect. Therefore, the aff ect
of water-based activity as a recovery strategy on
subsequent exercise performance is still rela-
tively unknown.
With this in mind, it was the purpose of this
investigation to assess the eff ect of implementing
an active water-based recovery session as a sub-
stitute for a second daily training session (i. e.
10 h later) on recovery and subsequent running
performance the following day.
Introduction
&
Light aerobic activity is a common recovery tech-
nique used after exercise, and is known to assist
in the reduction of some acute phase proteins
[3, 6] . Despite such benefi cial eff ects, the appro-
priate time duration between recovery exercise
and subsequent performance is not well
researched; with confl icting outcomes reported
in the literature. Coff ey et al. [4] showed that sub-
sequent running performance was not improved
when light aerobic running was used as a recov-
ery strategy; however, Lane and Wenger [10]
showed that subsequent cycling performance
was improved when light aerobic cycling was
used as a recovery method between cycling per-
formances. For both studies, the recovery meth-
ods were implemented immediately post-exercise,
and the time between the recovery and subse-
quent exercise performance was 4 h and 24 h,
respectively [4, 10] . Therefore, diff erence in the
results of both studies might be due to the time
interval between the recovery intervention and
subsequent exercise, or the mode of exercise
chosen.
Authors D. Lum
1
, G. Landers
1 , P. Peeling
1,2
Affi liation 1 The University of Western Australia, School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, Crawley, Australia
2 Western Australian Institute of Sport, Mt. Claremont, Australia
Abstract
&
The eff ects of a swimming-based recovery ses-
sion implemented 10 h post high intensity inter-
val running on subsequent run performance the
next day was investigated. Nine well trained
triathletes performed two high intensity inter-
val running sessions (HIIS) (8 × 3 min at 85 – 90 %
VO
2peak velocity), followed 10 h later by either a
swim recovery session (SRS) (20 × 100 m at 90 %
of 1 km time trial speed), or a passive recovery
session (PRS). Subsequently, a time to fatigue
run (TTF) was completed 24 h post-HIIS. Venous
blood samples were taken pre-HIIS and pre-TTF
to determine the levels of circulating C-Reactive
Protein (CRP). Subjects were also asked to rate
their perceived recovery prior to commencing
the TTF run. The SRS resulted in a signifi cantly
longer (830 ± 198 s) TTF as compared to PRS
(728 ± 183 s) ( p = 0.005). There was also a sig-
nifi cant percentage change from baseline in the
CRP levels 24 h post-HIIS (SRS = − 23 % , PRS = ± 5 % ,
p = 0.007). There were no signifi cant diff erences
in perceived recovery between two conditions
( p = 0.40) . The fi ndings of the present study
showed that a swimming-based recovery ses-
sion enhanced following day exercise perform-
ance, possibly due to the hydrostatic properties
of water and its associated infl uence on infl am-
mation.
Downloaded by: National Sport Information Centre. Copyrighted material.
Training & Testing 27
Lum D et al. Swim Recovery and Run Performance … Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 26 – 30
Methods
&
Subjects
Nine well-trained triathletes were recruited for participation in
this study (
● ▶ Table 1 ). Subjects were briefed on the purpose,
requirements and risks involved with participation, and signed a
written informed consent prior to commencement. Ethical
approval for this study was granted by the Human Ethics Com-
mittee of The University of Western Australia.
Experimental design
During this investigation, each participant underwent two pre-
liminary testing sessions and two experimental trials. The
experimental trials were completed in a randomised counter-
balanced order. Prior to commencement of each testing session,
participants were requested to refrain from consuming alcohol
and caff eine, and from participating in any intensive training
sessions for a 24 h period.
Preliminary testing sessions
The two preliminary testing sessions included (1) a graded exer-
cise test (GXT) for the determination of peak oxygen consump-
tion (VO
2peak ), lactate threshold and peak running velocity; and
(2) a 1 km swimming time trial (STT). These two preliminary
testing sessions were separated by a minimum of 24 h.
Graded exercise test
The GXT was the fi rst testing session for all participants, and was
conducted on a motorised treadmill (Nury Tec VR3000, Ger-
many). All sessions were conducted at 0600. The GXT occurred
in a step-like fashion, utilising 3 min exercise and 1 min rest
periods. The treadmill was set to 1 % grade to simulate outside
conditions [8] . An initial speed of 12 km / h was used, with subse-
quent increases of 1 km / h over each step until volitional exhaus-
tion. During the GXT, capillary blood samples were collected
from the earlobe to assess BLa during the 1 min period between
each stage. The GXT was used to determine VO
2peak , lactate
threshold (LT) and peak running speed. The LT was determined
using the modifi ed D
max method which involves calculating the
point that yields the maximal perpendicular distance from a
curve representing work and lactate variables, to the line formed
by the two end points of the curve [1] .
Swim time trial
Prior to the STT, participants were asked to complete a 500 m
warm-up swim (2 × [200 m freestyle and 50 m backstroke]) at a
self-paced intensity, followed by a 5 min period of stretching.
Subsequently, participants completed a 1 km swimming trial in
the shortest time possible using the freestyle swim stroke and
push start. All swimming trials were conducted in a 13 lane,
25 m pool, heated to 26 ° C.
Experimental trials
Each of the two experimental trials were conducted over a two
day period, and included the following:
Day One
High Intensity Interval Session (HIIS) . Participants were asked
to arrive at the physiology laboratory at 0600. Upon arrival, a
venous blood sample was taken from the forearm, after a seated
rest period of 15 min to control for postural changes. Participants
were then required to warm up on the treadmill for 5 min at 60 %
of the VO
2peak velocity, followed by a 5 min period of stretching.
Next, the HIIS was commenced which consisted of 8 repetitions
of a 3 min running interval at 90 % of the VO
2peak velocity, with
1 min rest between each repetition. Capillary blood samples
were taken from the earlobe pre-HIIS and upon completion of
the 4
th and 8
th repetition. Participants were also required to rate
their perceived exertion using the Borg Rating of Perceived Exer-
tion scale (RPE) at the end of the 8
th repetition [2] . Participants
then cooled down by running at 60 % of the VO
2peak velocity for
5 min.
Recovery session . Participants were asked to return to the
laboratory at 1 700 on the same day (10 h later). Upon arrival,
participants were asked to rate their perceived level of recovery
using the Total Quality Recovery perceived scale (TQRper) [9] .
Following this, participants were randomly assigned and crossed
over to complete either the Swim Recovery Session (SRS) or the
Passive Recovery Session (PRS). During the SRS, participants
were required to complete 4 sets of 5 × 100 m freestyle at 85 –
90 % of the participants ’ 1 km time trial speed (e. g. 1 km STT in
15 min = 5 × 100 m split time of 1 min 40 s). The work to rest ratio
for each repetition was 3:1, and participants were given 2 min
rest in between sets, allowing them to stretch. At the conclusion
of the fi nal set in the SRS a capillary blood sample was taken
from the earlobe for the measurement of BLa concentration.
During the PRS, participants were required to sit in the labora-
tory watching TV for 45 – 60 min in accordance with the duration
required for each individual to complete the SRS.
Day Two
Time To Fatigue (TTF) . On the following day, participants were
asked to return to the laboratory at 0600 where they were seated
for 15 min before a venous blood sample was taken from the
forearm and a rating of perceived recovery using the TQRper was
given. Participants then warmed up on the treadmill for 5 min at
60 % VO 2peak velocity, followed by a 5 min period of stretching.
Next, participants completed a TTF running trial on the tread-
mill at 90 % VO 2peak velocity. Timing for the TTF began when par-
ticipants released their grip from the treadmill railings, and
timing stopped when they pressed the emergency stop button.
Participants were required to give an RPE upon completion of
the run, and a capillary blood sample was taken from the ear
lobe for determination of blood lactate concentration. Following
this, participants cooled down by running at 60 % VO
2peak veloc-
ity for 5 min.
Experimental procedures
Gas analysis
Concentrations of O
2 and CO
2 in expired air were analysed con-
tinuously during the GXT (Ametek Gas Analysers, Applied Elec-
tochemistry, SOV S-3A / 1 and COV CD-3A, Pittsburgh, PA).
Age
(yr)
Height
(cm)
Mass
(kg)
VO
2max
(ml · kg
− 1 · min
− 1 )
VO
2max Velocity
(km · h
− 1 )
1 km Swim Time
(sec)
2 3
(4)
176.1
(7.6)
70.2
(11.9)
72.3
(5.8)
17.8
(0.9)
1 015.8
(174.2)
Table 1 Mean ( ± SD) Subject characteristics,
aerobic capacity (VO
2max ) and swim time trial (STT)
performance.
Downloaded by: National Sport Information Centre. Copyrighted material.
Training & Testing28
Lum D et al. Swim Recovery and Run Performance … Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 26 – 30
Calibration of gas analysers occurred before and after each test-
ing session using gases of known concentrations (BOC Gases,
Chatswood, Australia). Ventilation was recorded at 15 s intervals
via a turbine ventilometer (Morgan, 225 A, Kent, England), which
was calibrated before and after exercise using a 1 L syringe in
accordance with the manufacturer ’ s specifi cations. The sum of
the four highest consecutive 15 s values during the GXT was
used to determine each participant ’ s VO
2peak .
Blood sampling / analysis
Capillary blood . Arterialised capillary blood samples were
taken from the fi ngertip during the testing sessions using a 35 μ L
heparinised glass capillary tube. An alcohol swab was used to
wipe the collection site and the initial drop of blood was dis-
carded. Capillary blood samples were measured immediately
following collection for blood lactate levels, using a blood-gas
analyser (ABL 625, Radiometer Medical A / S, Copenhagen, Den-
mark)
Venous blood . Venous blood was drawn from the antecubital
vein of the forearm via phlebotomy. Prior to collection partici-
pants were seated for 15 min to avoid postural eff ects on blood
sampling. The venous blood samples were collected in 8.5 ml.
serum separator collection tubes (STII Advance, BD Vacutainer,
UK) for the measurement of serum C-Reactive Protein (CRP) con-
centration. The blood samples were spun for 10 min at 3 000 rpm
and stored at − 80 ° C until further analysis. The samples were
analysed for C-Reactive Protein levels at the Fremantle Hospital
Pathology Centre. Blood samples were collected before the HIIS
and again 24 h later before the TTF during each experimental
trial.
C-Reactive protein analysis . The CRP was measured using a
Roche Integra 800 analyser (Roche Diagnostics, Australia) and a
particle enhanced immunoturbidimetric assay kit. Absorbance
was measured at 552 nM · The analytical CV for CRP determina-
tion at 14.85 and 27.15 mg · L − 1 was 1.76 % and 2.19 % , respec-
tively.
Heart Rate Analysis . A Polar Heart Rate Monitor (Polar Electro,
Finland) was used to record the HR of the participants through-
out all testing sessions. During the GXT, HR was recorded before
testing began and at the completion of each 3 min work period.
Heart rate during the HIIS was recorded at the start and end of
each 3 min work period. As for the swim recovery, HR was
recorded at the end of each set of 5 × 100 m. Finally, the passive
recovery HR was recorded every 12 – 14 min in accordance with
the HR timing of the respective swim in the SRS.
Perceptual scales . Participants were required to rate their per-
ceived level of recovery using the TQRper [9] and their level of
exertion using the RPE scale [2] . Ratings obtained were used as
an indication of how the recovery methods aff ected the psycho-
logical well-being of the participants.
Statistical analysis
All results are expressed as mean and standard deviation
(mean ± SD). A repeated measures ANOVA for time and trial
eff ects was used to determine the infl uence of swimming as a
recovery method on the blood parameters gathered, and on the
subsequent running performance. Pairwise comparisons were
made where appropriate in the event of a main eff ect, with Fish-
er ’ s LSD applied. The alpha level was set at p < 0.05.
Results
&
High Intensity Interval Session (HIIS)
● ▶ Table 2 shows the results for running velocity, BLa and HR
during the HIIS. The BLa levels were signifi cantly greater than
the HIIS
pre after the 4
th and 8 th 3 min repetitions in both the SRS
and PRS conditions ( p = 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). There
were no signifi cant between group diff erences (SRS vs. PRS) for
BLa levels at HIIS
pre , or after the 4
th and 8
th 3 min repetition
( p = 0.76, p = 0.75 and p = 0.70, respectively).
Recovery sessions 10 h post-exercise
The BLa levels recorded at the conclusion of the SRS were 2.6.
( ± 0.9) mmol · L − 1 . There was no signifi cant diff erence for the
measurements of TQRper between SRS
post and the PRS
post
( p = 0.40).
Time to Fatigue Session (TTF)
●
▶ Fig. 1 illustrates the time diff erence for the TTF test between
the SRS and PRS conditions. Subjects ran for an average of 102 s
longer ( p = 0.005) after the SRS when compared to the PRS recov-
ery. Despite the signifi cantly longer run time in the SRS, there
were no signifi cant diff erences between trials in the levels of BLa
(SRS: 10.2 ± 1.9 mmol · L − 1 , PRS: 10.8 ± 2.6 mmol · L − 1 , p = 0.20) or
HR (SRS: 188 ± 7 bpm, PRS: 187 ± 7 bpm, p = 0.40).
C-Reactive Protein(CRP)
●
▶ Fig. 2 shows the percentage change from baseline for levels of
CRP between the SRS and PRS recovery trials. The SRS showed
signifi cantly lower levels of CRP 24 h after the HIIS ( p = 0.007),
whereas the PRS showed slightly elevated levels.
Discussion
&
The aim of the present study was to investigate the eff ects of
swimming as a recovery modality, implemented 10 h post high
intensity interval running on subsequent run performance the
following day. The major fi nding of this study was that a swim-
ming-based recovery session resulted in a signifi cantly longer
TTF run time, and a signifi cant reduction in CRP levels 24 h after
the interval running session. These results suggest that a swim-
Table 2 Mean ( ± SD) Running
velocity, blood lactate (BLa) and
average heart rate (HR)
measurements for HIIS before
(pre) and af3ter the 4
th (4) and
8
th (8) repetition.
Speed
(km · h
− 1 )
BLa (Pre)
(mmol · L
− 1 )
BLa (4)
(mmol · L
− 1 )
BLa (8)
(mmol · L
− 1 )
HR
(bpm)
SRS 16.0
(0.8)
1.9
(0.6)
8.0 *
(1.6)
9.4 *
(2.2)
187
(9)
PRS 16.0
(0.8)
1.9
(0.6)
7.8 #
(1.6)
9.2 #
(2.0)
186
(10)
* Denotes signifi cant diff erence from (SRS
pre ) ( p < 0.01)
# Denotes signifi cant diff erence from (PRS
pre ) ( p < 0.01)
Downloaded by: National Sport Information Centre. Copyrighted material.
Training & Testing 29
Lum D et al. Swim Recovery and Run Performance … Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 26 – 30
ming-based recovery session produced a more positive recovery
eff ect than the passive rest alone.
Several studies have investigated the eff ects of water-based
activity as a post-exercise recovery method, showing that such
strategies help to speed up the removal of BLa, assist in the
recovery of muscle soreness, and enhance the psychological
well-being of an athlete [11 – 13] . Despite these positive out-
comes, no improvement in subsequent exercise performance
was seen when the second exercise bout was implemented
immediately post-recovery [12] . In the present investigation
however, the swimming-based recovery session was imple-
mented as a second daily training session (10 h later), represent-
ative of what might typically occur in an athlete ’ s structured
training program. As such, the positive recovery outcomes seen
here provide evidence to suggest that coaches should factor in
recovery-based water sessions within an athlete ’ s training pro-
gram in order to maintain a greater quality of subsequent train-
ing the following day.
Performance
The results of the TTF showed that with a swimming-based
recovery session, the athletes were able to run for a signifi cantly
greater period of time (102 s) at 90 % VO 2peak velocity. These
results are consistent with that of Lane and Wenger [10] who
reported greater performance during a subsequent exercise bout
24 h after the initial session, when active recovery was used and
compared to passive recovery. However, these results are in con-
trast with those of Coff ey et al., [4] who showed no performance
enhancement when subsequent exercise bouts were imple-
mented only 4 h after an active recovery session. This possibly
suggests that active recovery produces a positive eff ect on exer-
cise performance when the initial and subsequent exercise bouts
are separated by a prolonged time period (i. e. 10 – 24 h). Addi-
tionally, the active recovery in the present study, and in that of
Lane and Wenger [10] utilised non weight bearing activity
(swimming and cycling, respectively), while Coff ey et al., [4] uti-
lised running as the recovery modality. As such, it is possible
that coaches implementing post-exercise recovery sessions into
an athlete ’ s training program may wish to consider non-weight
bearing alternatives in order to reduce the cumulative training
stresses that occur from continued weight bearing activity.
Infl ammatory response
Although there was a signifi cant improvement in TTF perform-
ance as a result of the swimming-based recovery, the present
fi ndings showed no signifi cant between condition diff erences in
BLa accumulation or HR at the end of the TTF, indicating that the
subjects terminated this trial at a similar level of physiological
stress. However, when considering the response of the acute-
phase infl ammatory proteins, it was evident that there was a
23 % decrease in level of circulating CRP in the SRS condition and
a 5 % increase in the PRS trial. It is possible that the hydrostatic
eff ect of water pressure incurred during swimming may in part
explain this reduced infl ammatory response, since a positive
increase in pressure gradient can reduce the severity of exer-
cise-induced oedema and the infi ltration of leukocytes and
monocytes into the cell, resulting in reduced levels of infl amma-
tory cells / muscle enzymes in the blood [15] . As such, it is likely
that the positive hydrostatic eff ects of a swimming-based recov-
ery session may act to reduce the infl ammatory response, allow-
ing a greater performance outcome the following day.
Perceptual ratings of athlete recovery
In the current investigation, there were no signifi cant diff erences
for TQRper ratings between the two recovery conditions, indi-
cating that there was no diff erence in the subjects ’ perception of
recovery regardless of the method implemented. This fi nding is
inconsistent with that of Suzuki et al. [13] who showed a signifi -
cant diff erence in psychological measures post-recovery (aquatic
exercise vs. complete rest). In their study, the aquatic exercise
group produced a more positive psychological rating (Profi le of
Mood State) as compared to that complete rest group. The diff er-
ence in fi ndings between the current investigation and Suzuki
et al. [13] may be attributed to the diff erent method of measur-
ing the psychological eff ect of the recovery methods. However, it
should be noted that to date there is very limited and consistent
inventory measures that reliably suggest the perceptual recov-
ery of an athlete. As such, future investigations should aim to
standardise the inventories used in the assessment of perceptual
athlete recovery.
Conclusion
&
In summary, the results of the present study showed a swim-
ming-based recovery session, implemented 10 h after the com-
pletion of a high intensity running session, resulted in a
1200
Time (s)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
SRS PRS
*
Fig. 1 Mean ( ± SD) time to fatigue run (TTF) time for the swim
recovery session (SRS: 830 ± 198 s) and the passive recovery session
(PRS: 728 ± 183 s). * Denotes signifi cant diff erence for TTF time between
recovery conditions ( p < 0.01).
10
5
0
-5
-10
% Change
-15
-20
-25
-30
SRS
*
PRS
Fig. 2 Percentage change for levels of C-Reactive Protein (CRP)
pre- and post-high intensity interval training session (HIIS) in the swim
recovery session (SRS: − 23 ± 0.7 % ) and the passive recovery session
(PRS: + 5 ± 2.6 % ). * Denotes signifi cant diff erence from PRS (p < 0.01).
Downloaded by: National Sport Information Centre. Copyrighted material.
Training & Testing30
Lum D et al. Swim Recovery and Run Performance … Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 26 – 30
signifi cantly greater performance on a TTF test the following
day. It was noticed that that the levels of CRP were signifi cantly
decreased as a result of the swimming-based recovery session,
suggesting a reduced infl ammatory response, indicating a posi-
tive eff ect of the water ’ s hydrostatic pressure. The results of this
investigation provide evidence to promote the implementation
of water-based recovery sessions as a second daily training ses-
sion into an athlete ’ s program, in order to allow better quality
training in sessions to be completed on subsequent days.
References
1 Bishop D , Jenkins D , Mackinnon T . The relationship between plasma
lactate parameters, W
peak and 1 h cycling performance in women . Med
Sci Sports Exerc 1998 ; 30 : 1270 – 1275
2 Borg G . Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales . Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics ; 1996
3 Brancaccio P , Maff ulli N , Limongelli FM . Creatine kinase monitoring in
sport medicine . Br Med Bull 2007 ; 82 : 209 – 230
4 Coff ey V , Leveritt M , Gill N . E ff ect of recovery modality on 4-hour
repeated treadmill running performance and changes in physiological
variables . J Sci Med Sport 2004 ; 7 : 1 – 10
5 Dawson B , Gow S , Modra S , Bishop D , Stewart G . E ff ects of immediate
post-game recovery procedures on muscle soreness, power and fl ex-
ibility levels over the next 48 h . J Sci Med Sport 2005 ; 8 : 210 – 221
6 Franklin BA , Whaley MH , Howley ET . ACSM’s guidelines for exercise
testing and prescription . Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins ; 2000
7 Ingram J , Dawson B , Goodman C , Wallman K , Beilby J . E ff ect of water
immersion methods on post-exercise recovery from simulated team
sport exercise . J Sci Med Sport 2008 , (Epub ahead of print)
8 Jones AM , Doust JH . A 1% treadmill grade most accurately refl ects the
energetic cost of outdoor running . J Sports Sci 1996 ; 14 : 321 – 327
9 Kentta G , Hassmen P . Overtraining and recovery: a conceptual model .
Sports Med 1998 ; 26 : 1 – 16
1 0 Lane KN , Wenge r HA . E ff ect of selected recovery conditions on per-
formance of repeated bouts of intermittent cycling separated by 24 h .
J Strength Cond Res 2004 ; 18 : 855 – 860
1 1 Reilly T , Cable NT , Dowzer CN . T h e e ffi cacy of deep-water running .
Contemporary Ergonomics . London: Taylor & Francis ; 2002 ; 162 – 166
1 2 Siebers LS , McMur ray RG . E ff ects of swimming and walking on exercise
recovery and subsequent swim performance . Res Quart Exerc Sport
1981 ; 52 : 68 – 75
1 3 Suzuki M , Umeda T , Nakaji S , Shimoyama T , Mashiko T , Sugawara K .
E ff ect of incorporating low intensity exercise into the recovery period
after a rugby match . Br J Sports Med 2004 ; 38 : 436 – 440
1 4 Vaile JM , Gill ND , Blazevich AJ . T h e e ff ect of contrast water therapy on
symptoms of delayed onset muscle soreness . J Strength Cond Res
2007 ; 21 : 697 – 702
1 5 Wilcock IM , Cronin JB , Hing WA . Physiological response to water
immersion: A method for sports recovery? Sports Med 2006 ; 36 :
747 – 765
Downloaded by: National Sport Information Centre. Copyrighted material.
