Is Recovery Optimized by Using a Cycle Ergometer Between Ski-Mountaineering Sprints?
Détails
Demande d'une copie Sous embargo indéterminé.
Accès restreint UNIL
Etat: Public
Version: de l'auteur⸱e
Licence: Non spécifiée
Accès restreint UNIL
Etat: Public
Version: de l'auteur⸱e
Licence: Non spécifiée
ID Serval
serval:BIB_3643A4FF0D54
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Is Recovery Optimized by Using a Cycle Ergometer Between Ski-Mountaineering Sprints?
Périodique
International journal of sports physiology and performance
ISSN
1555-0273 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1555-0265
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
01/05/2023
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
18
Numéro
5
Pages
553-556
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial
Publication Status: epublish
Publication Status: epublish
Résumé
To optimize the recovery phase between heats in ski-mountaineering sprint competitions, this study investigated whether an active recovery protocol on an ergocycle could improve subsequent performance compared with a self-selected recovery strategy.
Thirteen elite ski mountaineers (9 men and 4 women) performed 3 sprints with 2 different recovery conditions (Ergo vs Free) in a randomized order. The Ergo condition involved a 10-minute constant-intensity exercise on an ergocycle performed at 70% of maximum heart rate. For the Free condition, the athlete was asked to self-select modality. At the end of the third sprint, a passive recovery (seated) was prescribed for both protocols. Sprint performance (time) and physiological parameters (lactate concentration [La], heart rate [HR], and rating of perceived exertion [RPE]) were recorded from each sprint and recovery phase.
In the Ergo vs Free protocols, sprint times (177 [24] s vs 176 [23] s; P = .63), recovery average HR (70% [2.9%] vs 71% [5.2%] of maximal HR), and RPE (16.7 [1.5] vs 16.8 [1.5]; P = .81) were not significantly different. However, [La] decreased more after Ergo (-2.9 [1.8] mmol·L-1) and Free (-2.8 [1.8] mmol·L-1) conditions compared with passive recovery (-1.1 [1.6] mmol·L-1; P < .05).
The use of an ergocycle between heat sprints in ski mountaineering does not provide additional benefits compared with a recovery strategy freely chosen by the athletes. However, active conditions provide a faster [La] reduction compared with passive recovery and seem to be a more suitable strategy between multiple-heat sprints.
Thirteen elite ski mountaineers (9 men and 4 women) performed 3 sprints with 2 different recovery conditions (Ergo vs Free) in a randomized order. The Ergo condition involved a 10-minute constant-intensity exercise on an ergocycle performed at 70% of maximum heart rate. For the Free condition, the athlete was asked to self-select modality. At the end of the third sprint, a passive recovery (seated) was prescribed for both protocols. Sprint performance (time) and physiological parameters (lactate concentration [La], heart rate [HR], and rating of perceived exertion [RPE]) were recorded from each sprint and recovery phase.
In the Ergo vs Free protocols, sprint times (177 [24] s vs 176 [23] s; P = .63), recovery average HR (70% [2.9%] vs 71% [5.2%] of maximal HR), and RPE (16.7 [1.5] vs 16.8 [1.5]; P = .81) were not significantly different. However, [La] decreased more after Ergo (-2.9 [1.8] mmol·L-1) and Free (-2.8 [1.8] mmol·L-1) conditions compared with passive recovery (-1.1 [1.6] mmol·L-1; P < .05).
The use of an ergocycle between heat sprints in ski mountaineering does not provide additional benefits compared with a recovery strategy freely chosen by the athletes. However, active conditions provide a faster [La] reduction compared with passive recovery and seem to be a more suitable strategy between multiple-heat sprints.
Mots-clé
Female, Humans, Male, Ergometry, Exercise/physiology, Heart Rate/physiology, Lactic Acid, Mountaineering, elite athletes, sprint recovery
Pubmed
Web of science
Création de la notice
06/04/2023 12:18
Dernière modification de la notice
17/07/2024 6:09