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).