Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2019 September;59(9) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2019 September;59(9):1492-1502

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

REVIEW  EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOMECHANICS 

The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2019 September;59(9):1492-1502

DOI: 10.23736/S0022-4707.18.09188-0

Copyright © 2018 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

A systematic review examining the physiological, perceptual, and performance effects of active and passive recovery modes applied between repeated-sprints

Maria C. MADUENO 1, 2 , Joshua H. GUY 1, Vincent J. DALBO 1, 2, Aaron T. SCANLAN 1, 2

1 School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia; 2 Human Exercise and Training Laboratory, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia



INTRODUCTION: Repeated-sprinting involves performing frequent short sprints (≤10 s) interspersed with brief recovery periods (≤60 s). Studies involving repeated-sprint protocols have typically employed active or passive recovery modes applied between running and cycling sprints. This review synthesized the literature to determine the acute physiological, perceptual, and performance effects of recovery mode applied between repeated-sprints during running and cycling protocols.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic search was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Articles were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and MEDLINE databases. Studies were eligible if they: 1) compared active and passive recovery applied between repeated-sprints; 2) examined sprints lasting ≤10 s, and; 3) included ≤60 s recovery between sprints. Nine studies were included in this review. Five of the included studies examined running and four studies examined cycling.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Passive recovery induced less physiological stress (heart rate, oxygen consumption, and changes in oxyhemoglobin), lower perceptual stress (rating of perceived exertion), and reduced performance decrement (sprint time, speed, and sprint decrement) compared to active recovery in all running studies. Findings were equivocal in cycling.
CONCLUSIONS: Application of passive recovery between running repeated-sprints is recommended to reduce performance decrement than passive recovery. Alternatively, active recovery applied between running repeated-sprints provides greater physiological stress than passive recovery and may be a useful training overload strategy to promote physiological adaptation. The mixed findings for physiological and performance measures in cycling studies suggest further research is required to reach definitive conclusions regarding application of recovery modes between cycling repeated-sprints.


KEY WORDS: Bicycling; Running; Fatigue; Heart rate; Metabolism

top of page