Active vs. Passive Recovery During an Aerobic Interval Training Session in Well-Trained Runners

Abstract

[Abstract] Purpose To compare cardio-metabolic, perceptual and neuromuscular responses to an aerobic interval training (AIT) running session, with active (AR) vs. passive recovery (PR). Methods Eleven well-trained male distance runners (36.63±6.93 years, 59.26±5.27 mL·kg−1·min−1, ⁓ 35 min in 10 km) completed the University of Montréal Track Test (UMTT) and 2 AIT sessions on track in random order, which consisted of 4×2 min at 100% of the maximum aerobic speed (MAS), with 2 min of AR at 80% of the velocity associated to the second ventilatory threshold (vVT2), or no exercise (i.e., PR). During sessions, oxygen consumption (V̇O2), heart rate (HR), blood lactate [La], rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and countermovement jump (CMJ) were continuously monitored. Results There were no diferences in time spent in the “red zone” (i.e.>90% V̇O2max) between sessions (222±73 s AR vs. 230±104 s PR, p=0.588), although the PR exhibited a greater time spent at peak V̇O2 close to signifcance (117±114 vs. 158±109 s, p=0.056). However, the AR elicited a higher mean V̇O2 (49.62±5.91 vs. 47.46±4.20 mL·kg−1·min−1, p=0.021). The AR favored a lower [La] after sessions (6.93±2.22 vs. 6.24±1.93 mmol·L−1, p=0.016) and a higher RPE during sessions (15±0.45 vs. 14±0.47, p=0.045). Meanwhile, the CMJ was signifcantly potentiated during both sessions. Conclusion Considering that PR elicited lower perceptual loading for a similar cardiorespiratory response, its use would be preferable, at least, for this type of AIT running sessions.