4.4 Article

THE INFLUENCE OF RECOVERY DURATION AFTER HEAVY RESISTANCE EXERCISE ON SPRINT CYCLING PERFORMANCE

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
Volume 26, Issue 11, Pages 3089-3094

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318245beea

Keywords

postactivation potentiation; warm-up; individual response; deadlift

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Thatcher, R, Gifford, R, and Howatson, G. The influence of recovery duration after heavy resistance exercise on sprint cycling performance. J Strength Cond Res 26(11): 3089-3094, 2012-The aim of this study was to determine the optimal recovery duration after prior heavy resistance exercise (PHRE) when performing sprint cycling. On 5 occasions, separated by a minimum of 48 hours, 10 healthy male subjects (mean +/- SD), age 25.5 +/- 7.7 years, body mass 82.1 +/- 9.0 kg, stature 182.6 +/- 87 cm, deadlift 1-repetition maximum (1RM) 142 +/- 19 kg performed a 30-second sprint cycling test. Each trial had either a 5-, 10-, 20-, or 30-minute recovery after a heavy resistance activity (5 deadlift repetitions at 85% 1RM) or a control trial with no PHRE in random order. Sprint cycling performance was assessed by peak power (PP), fatigue index, and mean power output over the first 5 seconds (MPO5), 10 seconds (MPO10), and 30 seconds (MPO30). One-way analysis of variance with repeated measures followed by paired t-tests with a Bonferroni adjustment was used to analyze data. Peak power, MPO5, and MPO10 were all significantly different during the 10-minute recovery trial to that of the control condition with values of 109, 112, and 109% of control, respectively; no difference was found for the MPO30 between trials. This study supports the use of PHRE as a strategy to improve short duration, up to, or around 10-second, sprint activity but not longer duration sprints, and a 10-minute recovery appears to be optimal to maximize performance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available