The effect of passive versus active recovery on power output over six repeated wingate sprints.
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of active versus passive recovery on 6 repeated Wingate tests (30-s all-out cycling sprints on a Velotron ergometer).


METHOD
Fifteen healthy participants aged 29 (SD = 8) years old (body mass index = 23 [3] kg/m(2)) participated in 3 sprint interval training sessions separated by 3 to 7 days between each session during a period of 1 month. The 1st visit was familiarization to 6 cycling sprints; the 2nd and 3rd visits involved a warm-up followed by 6 30-s cycling sprints. Each sprint was followed by 4 min of passive (resting still on the ergometer) or active recovery (pedaling at 1.1 W/kg). The same recovery was used within each visit, and recovery type was randomized between visits.


RESULTS
Active recovery resulted in a 0.6 W/kg lower peak power output in the second sprint (95% confidence interval [CI] [ - 0.2, - 0.8 W/kg], effect size = 0.50, p < .01) and a 0.4 W/kg greater average power output in the 5th and 6th sprints (95% CI [+0.2,+0.6 W/kg], effect size = 0.50, p < .01) compared with passive recovery. There was little difference between fatigue index, total work, or accumulated work between the 2 recovery conditions.


CONCLUSIONS
Passive recovery is beneficial when only 2 sprints are completed, whereas active recovery better maintains average power output compared with passive recovery when several sprints are performed sequentially (partial eta squared between conditions for multiple sprints = .38).
['Lopez|Egla-Irina D|EI|', 'Smoliga|James M|JM|', 'Zavorsky|Gerald S|GS|']
D000328:Adult D000886:Anthropometry D001642:Bicycling D016552:Ergometry D005260:Female D006339:Heart Rate D006801:Humans D008297:Male D018763:Muscle Fatigue D053580:Muscle Strength D010806:Physical Education and Training D010807:Physical Endurance
sprint athletes athletic performance bicycle ergometry test