Journal of Human Kinetics volume 49/2015, 171-178 DOI: 10.1515/hukin-2015-0119 171
Section III – Sports Training
1 - Selçuk University, School of Physical Education and Sports, Alaeddin Keykubat Campus, 42003, Konya, Turkey.
Authors submitted their contribution to the article to the editorial board.
Accepted for printing in the Journal of Human Kinetics vol. 49/2015 in December 2015.
The Effect of Different Recovery Duration
on Repeated Anaerobic Performance in Elite Cyclists
by
Sultan Harbili1
This study investigated the effect of recovery duration on repeated anaerobic performance in elite cyclists. The
study followed a cross-over design protocol. Twelve elite male cyclists were randomly assigned to three groups (with
recovery duration of 1, 2 and 3 min, respectively). All the subjects performed 4 repeated Wingate tests (4 x 30 s WT) at
48 h intervals for three different recovery periods. No significant interaction was observed between the effects of
recovery duration and repetition (p>0.05), whereas there was a significant main effect of repetition on peak power, mean
power, and a fatigue index (p<0.05). Peak power decreased significantly in repeated WTs with 1 and with 2 min
recovery duration (p<0.05), but it did not change significantly in a repeated WT with 3 min recovery (p>0.05). In
contrast, mean power decreased significantly in repeated WTs with 1, 2 and 3 min recovery duration (p<0.05). The
fatigue index increased significantly in a repeated WT with 1 min recovery duration (p<0.05), but no significant
difference was observed in the fatigue index in repeated WTs with 2 and 3 min recovery (p>0.05). In a 4 x 30 s WT,
peak power decreased in cycles with 1 and 2 min recovery duration, but remained unchanged with 3 min recovery
duration, whereas mean power decreased in all recovery duration procedures. The WT with 1 min recovery duration
caused greater fatigue. Although recovery duration affected both peak power and mean power, the effect on peak power
was greater.
Key words: repeated Wingate test, recovery, anaerobic power.
Introduction
Shorter recovery duration plays a decisive
role in short-term high-intensity exercise in elite
athletes. The nature and duration of intervening
recovery periods determine the ability to produce
and maintain high power output during
successive sprints required in many sport events
(Glaister, 2005; Glaister et al., 2005). Intermittent
high-intensity sprint efforts combined with short
recovery periods have been identified as a key
factor in physical performance (Jones and Cooper,
2014). Thus, numerous studies have focused on
effects of a warm-up on anaerobic performance
(Poprzęcki et al., 2007), as well as fatigue and
recovery processes in repeated-sprint
performance (Bogdanis et al., 1996; McGawley
and Bishop, 2006; Dupont et al., 2007; Kohler et
al., 2010). These studies have demonstrated a
decrease in repeated-sprint performance closely
related to the number of repetitions, exercise
duration and the subject’s ability to recover from
the periods of work.
Power output during the first 30 s in a
maximal intensity exercise requires the ability to
rapidly resynthesize adenosine triphosphate
(ATP) from anaerobic sources, i.e.
phosphocreatine (PCr) degradation and glycolytic
pathways, as well as aerobic pathways,
approximately 28, 56 and 16%, respectively
(Hultman and Sjöholm, 1983; Smith and Hill,
1991; Faria et al., 2005). After a maximal intensity
exercise, oxygen uptake is increased during
recovery due to the replenishment of tissue
oxygen stores, PCr resynthesis, the removal of
lactate and inorganic phosphate (Bogdanis et al.,
1995; Glaister et al., 2005). At the same time,
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/5/16 9:26 AM
172 The effect of different recovery duration on repeated anaerobic performance in elite cyclists
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 49/2015 http://www.johk.pl
lactate removal from the blood following exercise
appears to be of great importance in improving
the subsequent performance, particularly when
the exercise is repeated at high intensity (Ahmaidi
et al., 1996). Recovery duration plays a decisive
role in the successful completion of these
processes. Although a complete recovery affects
each of these variables, the recovery of maximum
power production is primarily dependent on PCr
resynthesis (Bogdanis et al., 1995). Previous
studies have found that the halftime of PCr
resynthesis was ~22 s after maximal dynamic
exercise (Harris et al., 1976); that after 30 s
maximal sprint cycling, it took 1.5 min to
replenish 65% of PCr stores (Bogdanis et al., 1995);
and that the full return of PCr stores to resting
levels took >3 min (Wragg et al., 2000; Spencer et
al., 2006). Furthermore, Sahlin et al. (1979)
reported that resynthesis of ATP to ~80-100% of
resting levels required 2–4 min of recovery.
Repeated sprint protocols have typically
involved a bout of 2 to 25 sprints of 4-10 s (Wragg
et al., 2000; Bishop et al., 2001; Spencer et al., 2006;
Kohler et al., 2010). The influence of recovery
duration on repeated-sprint performance has been
investigated using a range of methods and
recovery periods of different duration (from 2-3 s
to 120 s), with 30 s recovery being the most
common (Bishop et al., 2001; Glaister et al., 2005;
Billaut and Basset, 2007). In those studies,
repeated-sprint performances were of shorter
duration, involved multiple repetitions and
shorter recovery periods, as is characteristic of
team sports. In contrast, relatively few studies
have investigated the effect of 30 s-4 min rest
periods on recovery in sprint performances with
fewer repetitions and longer duration (20-30 s)
(Bogdanis et al., 1996; Dupont et al., 2007).
However, those studies focused more on different
recovery types (active and passive) than on
recovery duration. In a recent study, Brown and
Glaister (2014) reported that when rest periods
were short, a passive recovery strategy appeared
to optimize repeated short sprint (RSS)
performance, and as the recovery duration
increased, subsequent RSS performance appeared
to benefit from an active recovery strategy. The
effect of longer recovery duration of 6-9-12 min in
3 x 45 s repeated-sprint performances has only
been investigated by one previous study
(Ainswort et al., 1993).
The time ratio between recovery and
exercise is a key factor in repeated-sprint
performance. Thus, the present study was
designed to examine the effects of various
recovery duration on repeated anaerobic
performance. For this purpose, the effect of
recovery duration of 1, 2 and 3 min between
maximal intensity exercise during a 30 s Wingate
test (WT) on peak power (PP), mean power (MP),
and fatigue index (FI) variables was investigated.
Material and Methods
Experimental Design
This study followed a cross-over design
protocol. The 12 subjects included in the study
performed 4 repeated-sprint cycle tests (Wingate
protocol) at 48 hour intervals on 3 different days.
The subjects were randomly assigned to three
groups of four on the first test day; on each test
day, while one group performed the test with 1
min recovery duration, another followed the same
protocol with 2 min recovery duration, while the
third group with 3 min rest periods. To avoid
learning and fatigue effects, all the subjects had
performed four repeated WTs at 48-hour
intervals, each with different recovery duration,
i.e., 1, 2 and 3 min. The subjects rested passively
on the cycle ergometer seat between WTs. All
WTs were performed between 3:00 pm and 6:00
pm. The subjects did not perform any other
exercise 24 h pre-WTs and during the five-day
WTs. All participants were instructed to avoid
alcohol consumption and ensure adequate
hydration 24 h before each trial and to refrain
from consuming food and fluids (except water)
for 2 h before each WT. The subjects ingested their
daily food and fluid intake during the 24 hours
before the first WT.
Participants
Twelve elite male cyclists, who were
national (n=10) and Olympic team (n=2,
participants in the 2012 Summer Olympics in
London) athletes with a minimal training load of
15 h per week during the season participated in
this study. The mean age, body height, body
mass, and training experience of participants were
21.50 ± 3.09 years, 1.78 ± 0.03 m, 67.94 ± 4.23 kg
and 7.25 ± 2.42 years, respectively. This study was
conducted in accordance with the guidelines set
forth by the Institutional Review Board of the
Selçuk University. After all subjects were fully
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/5/16 9:26 AM
by Sultan Harbili 173
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
informed about the risks and stresses associated
with the research protocol, written informed
consent was obtained from all subjects prior to
study participation.
Measures
Wingate Test
The subjects first warmed up on a cycle
ergometer (Monark 894E, Stockholm, Sweden) for
5 min at a resistance of 50 W and at 90 rpm pre
WT. After 3 min of rest, all subjects performed
four 30 s WTs with 75 g·kg-1 body weight load
with 1, 2 and 3 min recovery periods. The
participants were verbally encouraged to
maintain as high a pedaling rate as possible
throughout the 30 s test duration. The Wingate
test results were transferred to a computer via
Monark Anaerobic Test Software 2.0. Peak power
and mean power were calculated by this software.
The fatigue index (FI) was calculated according to
the following formula (Bar-Or, 1987): FI =
(maximal pedal speed – minimal pedal speed) /
maximal pedal speed * 100.
Heart rate (HR)
HR values of all the subjects were
instantaneously recorded after 1 min rest in the
sitting position in bed after the cyclists woke up at
9:00 in the morning, after 3 min in the sitting
position on a chair prior to the warm up for the
WT, immediately after WTs, and at the end of
recovery periods of 1, 2 and 3 min (S610i, Polar
Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland).
Statistical analysis
The data were expressed as the mean ±
standard deviation (SD). All variables measured
were analyzed using a 3 (recovery duration (D): 1,
2 and 3 min) x 4 (repetition (R): WT1, WT2, WT3,
and WT4) repeated measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA). When a significant interaction or a
main effect of factor 1 (recovery duration) or
factor 2 (repetition) was observed, a one-way
repeated measures analysis of variance with a
Bonferroni post-hoc test was performed for
multiple comparisons. The data were analyzed
using SPSS 18 for Windows. The level of
significance was set at 0.05.
Results
No significant interactions (recovery duration
x repetition) or main effect (recovery duration)
were observed for PP, MP, and FI in different
recovery duration (Tables 1, 2 and 3).
Repeated measures ANOVA results showed
significant differences for PP in both 1 min
recovery (F(3,33)=13.78, p<0.05) and 2 min
recovery (F(3,33)=10.28, p<0.05) periods (Table 1).
Furthermore, pairwise analyses confirmed that PP
decreased significantly in repeated WTs with 1
and 2 min recovery durations (p<0.05). In contrast,
the unchanged PP values found in a repeated WT
with 3 min recovery duration confirmed that PP
was sustained during the WTs (Table 1).
Significant differences were found for MP in
repeated WTs with 1 (F(3,33)=43.03, p<0.05), 2
(F(3,33)=39.48, p<0.05) and 3 min recovery periods
(F(3,33)=13.29, p<0.05). Pairwise analyses showed
significant decreases for MP during WT2, WT3,
and WT4 compared with WT1 in all recovery
periods (Table 2).
Another significant difference was observed in
the FI for 1 min recovery period (F(3,33)=8.13,
p<0.05). Only the FI was significantly higher in
WT4 than in WT1, WT2, and WT3 with 1 min
recovery duration (Table 3).
Table 1
Peak power (PP) output values during repeated Wingate tests
with different recovery duration. Values are means (±SD).
PP (W)
Recovery
duration WT1 WT2 WT3 WT4 D R DxR
1 min 731.43±110.04 661.01±91.50 594.23±81.67a,b 630.44±81.75a
2 min 738.96±116.92 689.23±111.44a 633.70±90.18a 622.85±97.23a 0.32 23.34* 1.43
3 min 716.00±118.26 696.94±107.84 663.61±107.40 655.41±95.85
* p<0.05, a = within-groups significantly different from WT1 (p<0.05),
b = p<0.05, within-groups significantly different from WT2 (p<0.05)
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/5/16 9:26 AM
174 The effect of different recovery duration on repeated anaerobic performance in elite cyclists
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 49/2015 http://www.johk.pl
Table 2
Mean power (MP) output values during repeated Wingate tests
with different recovery duration. Values are means (±SD).
MP (W)
Recovery
duration
WT1 WT2 WT3 WT4 D R DxR
1 min 590.14±74.68 512.39±51.91a 461.41±55.66a,b 468.01±43.20a,b
2 min 591.37±75.51 534.16±62.41a 475.45±49.26a,b 468.00±53.60a,b 0.81 86.55* 1.72
3 min 585.09±76.11 544.07±64.08a 505.71±58.5a 503.51±43.74a,b
*p<0.05, a = within-groups significantly different from WT1 (p<0.05),
b = within-groups significantly different from WT2 (p<0.05)
Table 3
Fatigue index (FI) values during repeated Wingate tests
with different recovery duration. Values are means (±SD).
FI (%)
Recovery
duration WT1 WT2 WT3 WT4 D R DxR
1 min 41.14±6.27 44.20±9.57 45.85±9.4 52.16±10.92a
2 min 45.25±8.94 46.40±8.82 48.71±8.54 48.56±10.75 0.11 8.73* 0.99
3 min 42.54±10.27 44.83±10.88 47.57±9.00 49.15±11.12
*p<0.05, a = within-groups significantly different from WT1, WT2, WT3 (p<0.05)
Figure 1
*, HR at the end of 1 min recovery duration was significantly higher than
that of 2 min and 3 min recovery duration for all rest intervals (p<0.05 ).
#, HR at the end of Rest1 for 1 and 3 min recovery duration
was significantly lower than that of Rest2-Rest3-Rest4 (p<0.05).
$, HR was significantly lower in Rest1
than in Rest4 in 2 min recovery duration (p<0.05).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/5/16 9:26 AM
by Sultan Harbili 175
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
The mean resting HR recorded when
cyclists woke up was 52.0 ±3.1 b·min-1, and HRs
pre WTs with 1, 2 and 3 min recovery periods
were 59.8 ±3.6 b·min-1, 59.6 ±3.3 b·min-1, and 57.0
±3.9 b·min-1, respectively.
No significant differences were observed in
the HR obtained immediately after repeated WTs
(p>0.05). When comparisons were made between
groups, the HR at the end of 1 min recovery
period was significantly higher than these of 2
and 3 min recovery periods for all rest intervals
(F(2,33)=17.02, p<0.05). With regard to withingroups
comparisons, in 1 and 3 min recovery
periods, the HR at the end of Rest1 was
significantly lower than that of Rest2, Rest3, or
Rest4 (F(3,99)=27.77, p<0.05). In addition, the HR
in Rest4 was significantly higher than in Rest1 for
the 2 min recovery period (p<0.05) (Figure 1).
Discussion
The most important finding of this study
was that recovery duration had a greater effect on
peak power, although it also affected mean
power. Peak power decreased in repeated WTs
with 1 and 2 min recovery periods, whereas no
significant decrease was found for peak power in
a repeated WT with a 3 min rest interval. The
effect of recovery duration on repeated anaerobic
performance had frequently been examined in
studies with shorter recovery duration between
relatively shorter multiple sprints. It was reported
in a study of 20 x 5 s repeated sprints with 10 and
30 s recovery duration that 30 s recovery duration
produced higher PP values (Dupont et al., 2007).
It was also demonstrated that increased (from 10
to 50 s, with 5 s intervals) and decreased (from 50
to 10 s) recovery duration and constant recovery
duration between 10 x 6 s cycling sprints were
effective on PP, and that increasing recovery
duration resulted in a smaller decrease in PP
values (Billaut and Basset, 2007). In the current
literature, maximal power output is associated
primarily with resynthesis of PCr (Bogdanis et al.,
1995); in addition, the half-time for PCr repletion
was reported to be ~22 s or more (Harris et al.,
1976), while full recovery of PCr stores required >
3 min (Meyer, 1988; Bogdanis et al., 1998).
Therefore, as the recovery duration between
repetitions increased, the subsequent sprint
intensity became greater due to the recovery of
PCr stores. In addition, in a study on 2 x 8 s
sprints with 15, 30, 60 and 120 s recovery
duration, PP decreased with 15 s recovery in both
sexes, whereas it remained unchanged in other
recovery duration (Billaut et al., 2003). In those
studies, as in the present study, the rate of
decrease of PP was lower for longer recovery
duration. However, repeated sprints with
duration similar to this of the present study (20-30
s) were performed with fewer repetitions (2 or 4
repetitions) and longer recovery duration (30 s – 4
min) in those studies (Ainswort et al., 1993;
Bogdanis et al., 1996; Dupont et al., 2007; Kohler et
al., 2010). In the sole study in which longer
repeated sprints (3 x 45 s, workload 53.9 N) with
recovery cycling performances of different
duration (6, 9 and 12 min, workload 9.8 N) were
performed, the power output was significantly
less on the 6 min repeated test than on the 9 and
12 min tests, and at least 9 min of recovery cycling
was recommended to maintain power output on a
repeated 45 s cycling test (Ainswort et al., 1993).
As in the study by Ainsworth (1993), the constant
peak power values found in the present study for
only 3 min recovery duration suggested that
longer recovery duration favorably affected the
sustainability of power output. However, the
studies investigating 20-30 s repeated sprints
focused more on recovery types (active and
passive) than on recovery duration (Bogdanis et
al., 1996; Dupont et al., 2007). Those studies
reported that a shorter passive recovery (15 s)
protocol between repeated sprints resulted in
greater power output values than an active
recovery protocol (Dupont et al., 2007). In another
study, active recovery with longer duration (4
min) and lower intensity in 2 x 30 s sprints had
positive effects on anaerobic performance
(Bogdanis et al., 1996). Both studies showed that
passive recovery produced positive effects in
shorter recovery duration to restore performance,
whereas active recovery had a positive effect on
anaerobic performance in longer recovery
duration. In the present study, 3 min passive
recovery affected peak power positively, although
the study was not focused on the recovery
protocol. In terms of physiological processes of
recovery, this finding suggested that 3 min
recovery resulted in the replenishment of tissue
oxygen stores, PCr resynthesis, lactate
metabolism, and the removal of inorganic
phosphate (Bogdanis et al., 1995; Faria et al.,
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/5/16 9:26 AM
176 The effect of different recovery duration on repeated anaerobic performance in elite cyclists
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 49/2015 http://www.johk.pl
2005).
In this study, MP significantly decreased in
all recovery duration. Longer recovery periods
between shorter repeated sprints had been found
to produce a lower rate of decrease in MP values
(Glaister et al., 2005; Billaut and Basset, 2007).
However, duration of the sprints performed in
those studies was 8-10 s, duration that is more
likely to affect PP than MP. It had also been
shown that longer recovery duration between
longer repeated sprints produced a smaller
decrease in MP (Ainswort et al., 1993). In the
present study, the number and duration of
repeated sprints were relatively greater. At this
duration and number of repetitions, 1, 2 and 3
min recovery periods were not enough to sustain
MP. The intensity of the repetitions in repeated
sprints is directly related to the duration of the
preceding sprint. In a study in which the power
output values obtained from 30 s sprints
performed after a 10 s sprint and a 20 s sprint
were analyzed, it was found that the PP values for
the 10 s sprint were similar to those of the
subsequent 30 s sprint, however, the MP values
were different. Furthermore, for the 30 s sprint
performed after the 20 s sprint, both PP and MP
values found for the 30 s sprint were lower than
the corresponding values for the preceding 20 s
sprint and lower than the corresponding values
for a 30 s sprint performed after a 10 s sprint
(Bogdanis et al., 1998). The decrease observed in
MP in the present study is consistent with the
results of previous studies. The reason for all the
decreases in MP found for all recovery duration in
the present study might be that restoration of MP
would require higher rates of ATP regeneration.
The incomplete resynthesis of PCr and a possible
reduction of glycolysis (35%) owing to elevated
H+ are expected to reduce anaerobic ATP
regeneration (51%) (Bogdanis et al., 1998), while
the increase in aerobic metabolism is most likely
not significant to compensate (Bogdanis et al.,
1996). The FI values were higher only in the 1 min
group. This finding suggested that 1 min recovery
duration caused more fatigue. On the other hand,
the fatigue index was the least reliable of the three
Wingate test indices, and its validity was
questioned as it largely depends on aerobic
performance. Nonetheless, the validity of mean
power as an index of anaerobic capacity is as
questionable as the validity of the fatigue index
(Driss and Vandewalle, 2013).
HR values after repeated WTs were similar
for all recovery duration. This result indicated
that cyclists generated similar metabolic
responses in repeated sprints. However, HR
values after recovery intervals of the 1min group
were higher than those of the 2 and 3 min groups.
The results of the present study showed that HR
responses after WTs were similar and
submaximal. Chamari et al. (1995) reported a
submaximal HR of 83% in an exercise protocol of
6 s sprints with 5 min recovery duration. This
submaximal HR response was attributed to the
long recovery periods and to the test
characteristics, as the test maximally involved the
subject's muscles without overloading the
cardioventilatory system (Chamari et al., 1995).
Additionally, the same study found that HR
response values for the 2nd and 3rd test and
recovery were significantly higher than the 1st test
and recovery values. The HR responses after
recovery reported in that study were similar to
those of the present study. In addition, the similar
fatigue index levels observed in all recovery
duration suggested that the HRs after the WT
were also similar.
The present study has a few limitations.
The first was the relatively small sample size of
highly fit individuals, which most likely
decreased our statistical power to detect repeated
anaerobic performance differences in trained men.
Future studies using a larger sample size are
needed to confirm these findings. The second
limitation was diet control: the participants were
informed about dietary measures, however, diet
was not controlled. Thirdly, the current data set is
limited to elite athletes, and it might not be
generalized to sedentary adults or elderly
individuals. The major limitation may be related
to the lack of biochemical evaluations, most of all
LA and HCO3- variables.
Conclusions
In 4 x 30 s repeated-sprint performances,
PP decreased in 1 and 2 min recovery duration,
but did not change in the 3 min recovery duration,
whereas MP decreased in all recovery periods.
However, repeated sprints with 1 min recovery
duration resulted in greater fatigue. These results
indicate that recovery duration had a greater
effect on peak power than on mean power.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/5/16 9:26 AM
by Sultan Harbili 177
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
Acknowledgements
The author thanks all the cyclists for their efforts. The author has no conflicts of interest that are relevant
to the content of this article.
References
Ahmaidi S, Granier P, Taoutaou Z, Mercier J, Dubouchaud H, Prefaut C. Effects of active recovery on plasma
lactate and anaerobic power following repeated intensive exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 1996; 28: 450-
456
Ainswort BE, Serfass RC, Leon AS. Effect of recovery duration and blood lactate level on power output
during cycling. Can J Appl Physiol, 1993; 18: 19-30
Bar-Or O. The Wingate anaerobic test, an update on methodology, reliability, and validity. Sports Med, 1987;
4: 381-394
Billaut F, Giacomoni M, Falgairette G. Maximal intermittent cycling exercise: effects of recovery duration
and gender. J Appl Physiol, 2003; 95: 1632-1637
Billaut F, Basset FA. Effect of different recovery patterns on repeated-sprint ability and neuromuscular
responses. J Sports Sci, 2007; 25: 905-913
Bishop D, Spencer M, Duffield R, Lawrence S. The validity of a repeated sprint ability test. J Sci Med Sport,
2001; 4: 19-29
Bogdanis GC, Nevill ME, Boobis LH, Lakomy HK, Nevill AM. Recovery of power output and muscle
metabolites following 30 s of maximal sprint cycling in man. J Physiol, 1995; 482: 467-480
Bogdanis GC, Nevill ME, Lakomy HK, Graham CM, Louis G. Effects of active recovery on power output
during repeated maximal sprint cycling. Eur J Appl Physiol, 1996; 74: 461-469
Bogdanis GC, Nevill ME, Lakomy HK, Boobis LH. Power output and muscle metabolism during and
following recovery from 10 and 20 s of maximal sprint exercise in humans. Acta Physiol Scand, 1998;
163: 261-272
Brown J, Glaister M. The interactive effects of recovery mode and duration on subsequent repeated sprint
performance. J Strength Cond Res, 2014; 28: 651-660
Chamari K, Ahmaidi S, Fabre C, Ramonatxo M, Préfaut C. Pulmonary gas exchange and ventilatory
responses to brief intense intermittent exercise in young trained and untrained adults. Eur J Appl
Physiol, 1995; 70: 442-450
Driss T, Vandewalle H. The measurement of maximal (anaerobic) power output on a cycle ergometer: a
critical review. Biomed Res Int, 2013; 2013:589361
Dupont G, Moalla W, Matran R, Berthoin S. Effect of short recovery intensities on the performance during
two Wingate tests. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2007; 39: 1170-1176
Faria EW, Parker DL, Faria IE. The science of cycling: physiology and training - part 1. Sports Med, 2005; 35:
285-312
Glaister M. Multiple sprint work: physiological responses, mechanisms of fatigue and the influence of
aerobic fitness. Sports Med, 2005; 35: 757-777
Glaister M, Stone MH, Stewart AM, Hughes M, Moir GL. The influence of recovery duration on multiple
sprint cycling performance. J Strength Cond Res, 2005; 19: 831-837
Harris RC, Edwards RH, Hultman E, Nordesjö LO, Nylind B, Sahlin K. The time course of
phosphorylcreatine resynthesis during recovery of the quadriceps muscle in man. Pflugers Arch, 1976;
367: 137-142
Hultman E, Sjöholm H. Energy metabolism and contraction force of human skeletal muscle in situ during
electrical stimulation. J Physiol, 1983; 345: 525-532
Jones B, Cooper CE. Use of NIRS to assess effect of training on peripheral muscle oxygenation changes in
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/5/16 9:26 AM
178 The effect of different recovery duration on repeated anaerobic performance in elite cyclists
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 49/2015 http://www.johk.pl
elite rugby players performing repeated supramaximal cycling tests. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2014; 812: 333-
339
Kohler RM, Rundell KW, Evans TM, Levine AM. Peak power during repeated Wingate trials: Implications
for testing. J Strength Cond Res, 2010; 24: 370-374
McGawley K, Bishop D. Reliability of a 5 x 6-s maximal cycling repeated-sprint test in trained female teamsport
athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2006; 98: 383-393
Meyer RA. A linear model of muscle respiration explains monoexponential phosphocreatine changes. Am J
Physiol, 1988; 254: 548-553
Poprzęcki S, Zajac A, Wower B, Cholewa J. The effects of a warm-up and the recovery interval prior to
exercise on anaerobic power and acid-base balance in man. J Hum Kinet, 2007; 18: 15-28
Sahlin K, Harris RC, Hultman E. Resynthesis of creatine phosphate in human muscle after exercise in
relation to intramuscular pH and availability of oxygen. Scand J Clin Lab Invest, 1979; 39: 551-558
Smith JC, Hill DW. Contribution of energy systems during a Wingate power test. Br J SportsMed, 1991; 25:
196-199
Spencer M, Bishop D, Dawson B, Goodman C, Duffield R. Metabolism and performance in repeated cycle
sprints: active versus passive recovery. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2006; 38: 1492-1499
Wragg CB, Maxwell NS, Doust JH. Evaluation of the reliability and validity of a soccer-specific field test of
repeated sprint ability. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2000; 83: 77-83
Corresponding author:
Sultan Harbili
Address: Selçuk University, School of Physical Education and Sports,
Alaeddin Keykubat Campus, 42003, Konya, Turkey
Telephone: +90 332 2234768
Fax: +90 332 2411608
E-mail: sharbili@selcuk.edu.tr
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 2/5/16 9:26 AM