Effect of recovery modal i ty on some physiological var iables following treadmil l running

V.G. Coffey *~, M.D.Leveritt 2 & N. Gill 1 lWaikato Institute Of Technology, Hamilton, New Zealand

2University Of Westminster, London, England

This study was performed to investigate physiological responses of heart rate and blood variables to different recovery modalities following the performance of high-intensity treadmill running. The recovery modalities included 1) active recovery [ACT] 2) passive recovery [PAS] and 3) contrast temperature water immersion [CTW] in a randomised multiple crossover. Participants performed three experimental trials. The running protocols included treadmill runs to exhaustion at 120% and 90% of their previously determined peak running speed (PRS). Participants performed a different recovery modality for 15-minutes following the 90% PRS run for each of the three experimental trials. Mean (+ SD) changes (n=14) recorded between rest and 20-minutes post-exercise for urea were: ACT 0.29 mg.dL -1 (+ 0.28), PAS 0.33 mg.dL -1 (+ 0.58), CTW -0.10 mg.dL -1 (+ 0.25). Mean changes between rest and 4-hours post-exercise for creatine kinase were: ACT 43.89 U.L -~ (+ 43.61), PAS 29.43 U.L 4 (+ 69.27), CTW 46.54 U.L 4 (+ 61.88). Mean changes for peak blood lactate concentration recovery from 0- to 20-minutes post-exercise were: ACT 6.96 mmoI.L -1 (+ 220), PAS 5.26 mmoI.L -~ (+ 1.23), CTW 6.60 mmol.L 4 (+ 1.41). Data suggest that the type of recovery modality may influence blood urea and creatine kinase levels and lactate recovery in different ways.

Recovery from a sprint: Impact of act ive recovery M.S. Madon*, D.Bishop & P.A. Fournier

School Of Human Movement & Exercise Science, The Univeristy Of Western Australia

Although active recovery accelerates the return of blood pH and lactate to basal levels, the improvement in sprint performance is marginal or absent. We hypothesised that this might be due to the recovery time chosen for comparing recovery protocols. In an attempt to compare active and passive recovery at a time when recovery is incomplete, we established the time dependence of recovery of several indicators of sprint performance. Subjects (n = 7) performed an initial 30-s sprint on a cycle ergometer followed by a subsequent 30-s sprint; each sprint separated by a recovery period of either 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 or 40 min. The calculated time required to recover 50% of peak power, total work, average work over the first 10, last 20 and last 10 s, were 1, 2, 1, 3, and 4 min, respectively. Full recovery took place within 20 min (p < 0.05). Based on our calculations, we chose to compare passive and active recovery (40% VO2 r~ax) at 4 and 20 min post-sprint. Although active recovery resulted in faster return of blood lactate and pH to pre-exercise levels, it had no effect on recovery of sprint performance. We conclude that active recovery has little or no effect on recovery of 30-s sprint performance.

44