Interval running with self-selected recovery: physiology, performance and perception

Gary McEwan, Rosemary Arthur, Shaun Phillips, Neil Gibson, Chris Easton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)
120 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This study: 1) compared the physiological responses and performance during a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) session incorporating externally-regulated (ER) and self-selected (SS) recovery periods; and 2) examined the psychophysiological cues underpinning self-selected recovery durations. Following an incremental maximal exercise test to determine maximal aerobic speed (MAS), fourteen recreationally-active males completed two HIIT sessions on a non-motorised treadmill. Participants performed 12 x 30s running intervals at a target intensity of 105% MAS interspersed with 30s (ER) or SS recovery periods. During SS, participants were instructed to provide themselves with sufficient recovery to complete all 12 efforts at the required intensity. A semi-structured interview was undertaken following the completion of SS. Mean recovery duration was longer during SS (51 ± 15s) compared to ER (30 ± 0s; P<0.001; d=1.46 ± 0.46). Between-interval heart rate recovery was higher (SS: 19 ± 9 b·min-1; ER: 8 ± 5 b·min-1; P<0.001; d=1.43 ± 0.43) and absolute time ≥90% maximal heart rate (HRmax) was lower (SS: 335 ± 193s; ER: 433 ± 147s; P=0.075; d=0.52 ± 0.39) during SS compared to ER. Relative time ≥105% MAS was greater during SS (90 ± 6%) compared to ER (74 ± 20%; P<0.01; d=0.87 ± 0.40). Different sources of afferent information underpinned decision-making during SS. The extended durations of recovery during SS resulted in a reduced time ≥90% HRmax but enhanced time ≥105% MAS, compared with ER exercise. Differences in the afferent cue utilization of participants likely explain the large levels of inter-individual variability observed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1058-1067
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Journal of Sport Science
Volume18
Issue number8
Early online date29 May 2018
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 29 May 2018

Fingerprint

Running
Cues
Heart Rate
Exercise Test
Decision Making
Interviews
High-Intensity Interval Training

Keywords

  • Fatigue
  • exercise
  • performance
  • physiology
  • recovery

Cite this

@article{12400c52d93b490aaeed2638f1b9f7ce,
title = "Interval running with self-selected recovery: physiology, performance and perception",
abstract = "This study: 1) compared the physiological responses and performance during a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) session incorporating externally-regulated (ER) and self-selected (SS) recovery periods; and 2) examined the psychophysiological cues underpinning self-selected recovery durations. Following an incremental maximal exercise test to determine maximal aerobic speed (MAS), fourteen recreationally-active males completed two HIIT sessions on a non-motorised treadmill. Participants performed 12 x 30s running intervals at a target intensity of 105{\%} MAS interspersed with 30s (ER) or SS recovery periods. During SS, participants were instructed to provide themselves with sufficient recovery to complete all 12 efforts at the required intensity. A semi-structured interview was undertaken following the completion of SS. Mean recovery duration was longer during SS (51 ± 15s) compared to ER (30 ± 0s; P<0.001; d=1.46 ± 0.46). Between-interval heart rate recovery was higher (SS: 19 ± 9 b·min-1; ER: 8 ± 5 b·min-1; P<0.001; d=1.43 ± 0.43) and absolute time ≥90{\%} maximal heart rate (HRmax) was lower (SS: 335 ± 193s; ER: 433 ± 147s; P=0.075; d=0.52 ± 0.39) during SS compared to ER. Relative time ≥105{\%} MAS was greater during SS (90 ± 6{\%}) compared to ER (74 ± 20{\%}; P<0.01; d=0.87 ± 0.40). Different sources of afferent information underpinned decision-making during SS. The extended durations of recovery during SS resulted in a reduced time ≥90{\%} HRmax but enhanced time ≥105{\%} MAS, compared with ER exercise. Differences in the afferent cue utilization of participants likely explain the large levels of inter-individual variability observed.",
keywords = "Fatigue, exercise, performance, physiology, recovery",
author = "Gary McEwan and Rosemary Arthur and Shaun Phillips and Neil Gibson and Chris Easton",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "29",
doi = "10.1080/17461391.2018.1472811",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "1058--1067",
journal = "European Journal of Sport Science",
issn = "1746-1391",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "8",

}

Interval running with self-selected recovery : physiology, performance and perception. / McEwan, Gary; Arthur, Rosemary; Phillips, Shaun; Gibson, Neil; Easton, Chris.

In: European Journal of Sport Science, Vol. 18, No. 8, 29.05.2018, p. 1058-1067.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interval running with self-selected recovery

T2 - physiology, performance and perception

AU - McEwan, Gary

AU - Arthur, Rosemary

AU - Phillips, Shaun

AU - Gibson, Neil

AU - Easton, Chris

PY - 2018/5/29

Y1 - 2018/5/29

N2 - This study: 1) compared the physiological responses and performance during a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) session incorporating externally-regulated (ER) and self-selected (SS) recovery periods; and 2) examined the psychophysiological cues underpinning self-selected recovery durations. Following an incremental maximal exercise test to determine maximal aerobic speed (MAS), fourteen recreationally-active males completed two HIIT sessions on a non-motorised treadmill. Participants performed 12 x 30s running intervals at a target intensity of 105% MAS interspersed with 30s (ER) or SS recovery periods. During SS, participants were instructed to provide themselves with sufficient recovery to complete all 12 efforts at the required intensity. A semi-structured interview was undertaken following the completion of SS. Mean recovery duration was longer during SS (51 ± 15s) compared to ER (30 ± 0s; P<0.001; d=1.46 ± 0.46). Between-interval heart rate recovery was higher (SS: 19 ± 9 b·min-1; ER: 8 ± 5 b·min-1; P<0.001; d=1.43 ± 0.43) and absolute time ≥90% maximal heart rate (HRmax) was lower (SS: 335 ± 193s; ER: 433 ± 147s; P=0.075; d=0.52 ± 0.39) during SS compared to ER. Relative time ≥105% MAS was greater during SS (90 ± 6%) compared to ER (74 ± 20%; P<0.01; d=0.87 ± 0.40). Different sources of afferent information underpinned decision-making during SS. The extended durations of recovery during SS resulted in a reduced time ≥90% HRmax but enhanced time ≥105% MAS, compared with ER exercise. Differences in the afferent cue utilization of participants likely explain the large levels of inter-individual variability observed.

AB - This study: 1) compared the physiological responses and performance during a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) session incorporating externally-regulated (ER) and self-selected (SS) recovery periods; and 2) examined the psychophysiological cues underpinning self-selected recovery durations. Following an incremental maximal exercise test to determine maximal aerobic speed (MAS), fourteen recreationally-active males completed two HIIT sessions on a non-motorised treadmill. Participants performed 12 x 30s running intervals at a target intensity of 105% MAS interspersed with 30s (ER) or SS recovery periods. During SS, participants were instructed to provide themselves with sufficient recovery to complete all 12 efforts at the required intensity. A semi-structured interview was undertaken following the completion of SS. Mean recovery duration was longer during SS (51 ± 15s) compared to ER (30 ± 0s; P<0.001; d=1.46 ± 0.46). Between-interval heart rate recovery was higher (SS: 19 ± 9 b·min-1; ER: 8 ± 5 b·min-1; P<0.001; d=1.43 ± 0.43) and absolute time ≥90% maximal heart rate (HRmax) was lower (SS: 335 ± 193s; ER: 433 ± 147s; P=0.075; d=0.52 ± 0.39) during SS compared to ER. Relative time ≥105% MAS was greater during SS (90 ± 6%) compared to ER (74 ± 20%; P<0.01; d=0.87 ± 0.40). Different sources of afferent information underpinned decision-making during SS. The extended durations of recovery during SS resulted in a reduced time ≥90% HRmax but enhanced time ≥105% MAS, compared with ER exercise. Differences in the afferent cue utilization of participants likely explain the large levels of inter-individual variability observed.

KW - Fatigue

KW - exercise

KW - performance

KW - physiology

KW - recovery

U2 - 10.1080/17461391.2018.1472811

DO - 10.1080/17461391.2018.1472811

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 1058

EP - 1067

JO - European Journal of Sport Science

JF - European Journal of Sport Science

SN - 1746-1391

IS - 8

ER -