Abstract
The present randomized cross-over controlled study aimed to compare the rate of recovery from a strength-oriented exercise session vs. a power-oriented session with equal work. Sixteen strength-trained individuals conducted one strength-oriented session (five repetitions maximum (RM)) and one power-oriented session (50% of 5RM) in randomized order. Squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), 20-m sprint, and squat and bench press peak power and estimated 1RMs were combined with measures of rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and perceived recovery status (PRS), before, immediately after and 24 and 48 h after exercise. Both sessions induced trivial to moderate performance decrements in all variables. Small reductions in CMJ height were observed immediately after both the strength-oriented session (7 ± 6%) and power-oriented session (5 ± 5%). Between 24 and 48 h after both sessions CMJ and SJ heights and 20 m sprint were back to baseline. However, in contrast to the power-oriented session, recovery was not complete 48 h after the strength-oriented session, as indicated by greater impairments in CMJ eccentric and concentric peak forces, SJ rate of force development (RFD) and squat peak power. In agreement with the objective performance measurements, RPE and PRS ratings demonstrated that the strength-oriented session was experienced more strenuous than the power-oriented session. However, these subjective measurements agreed poorly with performance measurements at the individual level. In conclusion, we observed a larger degree of neuromuscular impairment and longer recovery times after a strength-oriented session than after a power-oriented session with equal total work, measured by both objective and subjective assessments. Nonetheless, most differences were small or trivial after either session. It appears necessary to combine several tests and within-test analyses (e.g., CMJ height, power and force) to reveal such differences. Objective and subjective assessments of fatigue and recovery cannot be used interchangeably; rather they should be combined to give a meaningful status for an individual in the days after a resistance exercise session.
Highlights
Athletes use different forms of resistance exercise to improve muscle power output and sport performance, including heavy load strength-oriented exercises (e.g., ∼80% of 1 Repetition Maximum [1RM]) and low-to-moderate load power-oriented exercises (e.g., ∼40% of 1RM; Newton & Kraemer, 1994)
In the present study we address the typical error of all tests applied and explore the sensitivity of different variables extracted from squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ)
Note that the Coefficient of Variation % (CV) was larger than the smallest worthwhile change (SWC) for most variables (e.g., CMJ and SJ RFDmax), but equal or lower for some variables
Summary
Athletes use different forms of resistance exercise (training) to improve muscle power output and sport performance, including heavy load strength-oriented exercises (e.g., ∼80% of 1 Repetition Maximum [1RM]) and low-to-moderate load power-oriented exercises (e.g., ∼40% of 1RM; Newton & Kraemer, 1994). High-intensity resistance exercise challenges the ability to generate high forces, and with a conventional volume of exercise (∼5–15 sets per muscle group) neuromuscular fatigue develops during the sessions. This resistance exercise-induced fatigue typically requires 1–3 days of recovery (Vincent & Vincent, 1997; Raastad & Hallen, 2000; Ahtiainen et al, 2003; Ahtiainen et al, 2004). The difficulty in predicting recovery rates lies in the range of factors at play, including—but not restricted to—type of muscle contractions, relative load (% of maximal strength) and volume of work performed (i.e., load times displacement times number of repetitions)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
