Abstract
Work-to-rest ratios (W:R) are designed to allow optimal recovery in sequential exercise bouts with particular consideration of intensity and duration. Emerging evidence supports the use of perceptual measures of recovery as valuable training tools in human performance. However, the efficacy of a perceptual measure of recovery compared to pre-established W:R during bouts of repeated sprint work has not been explored. PURPOSE: To compare performance during identical bouts of repeated sprints using either traditional W:R methodology vs. the use of a perceptual measure to gauge recovery. METHODS: Eight sprint-trained individuals completed two repeated sprint trials consisting of 3 sets of 8, 30-meter sprints on a non-motorized treadmill. Between each set of sprints, participants were given either a standard 5-min recovery whereupon the next set of sprints began or they were allowed to gauge recovery using a previously tested 0-10 Perceived Recovery Status (PRS) Scale. When using the PRS, once a participant estimated a recovery level ‘5’ they began their next set of sprints. Performance measures included power (watts), decrements in power (DEC), recovery of power between sets (REC), and acute RPE estimated per sprint, but averaged to represent RPE in a set. RESULTS: When using the PRS, individuals self-selected longer recovery times than the standard 5 minutes (on average 24 sec longer between sets 1 and 2 and 1 min 54 sec longer between sets 2 and 3). A 2 (trial) x 3 (sets of sprints) repeated measures ANOVA revealed no significant differences (p > 0.05) in performance measures. However, performance was improved, albeit not significantly, when participants used the PRS method vs. the traditional W:R. In general, when using the perceptually-regulated recovery strategy, improvements (~8-12%) were observed in power, DEC, REC, and RPE vs. a set 5-min recovery period. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that perceptually regulated recovery periods were longer but produce, at a minimum, statistically similar repeated sprint performance results. In addition to greater convenience associated with subjective markers, increased adherence to exercise associated with this form of training is plausible when using perceptual markers to set intensities during exercise.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
