The Effect of Recovery Time on Subsequent 2K Performance in NCAA Division I Competitive Women Collegiate Rowers

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Recovery plays a crucial role in athletic success, yet it is one of the least understood and under-researched areas of sport performance. This study examined the impact of recovery duration on subsequent performance over 2000m on a rowing ergometer using a Concept II-D, (Morrisville, VT) ergometer. METHODS: Ten well-trained, collegiate women rowers (age: 19.4+/− 1.2 yrs, ht: 175.1+/− 5.6, body mass: 63.6+/− 8.5 kg) participated in this investigation. In a randomized, crossover design all subjects completed 2 race trials in each of 2 experimental sessions, passively recovering for either 6 or 24 hours in between trials. Data were collected every 500m; including average power, stroke rate, and 500m split time as well as heart rate and rating of perceived exertion. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was used to analyze these data and to compare the baseline rowing trials with the subsequent recovery trial of either 6 or 24 hours after the first simulated race of the two day sequence. When appropriate a Fishers LSD post-hoc test was used to determine pair wise differences between the means. Significance in this study was set at P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Results showed no statistically significant differences in any of these variables with either the 6 or 24 hour recovery condition or across 500m time points within each race trial. No differences were seen for power changes across the race trials. (see Figure 1). For the RPE values at each 500m segment there were no differences between the recovery time points for any given race segment. However, as might be expected RPE values increased over the course of the race to almost maximal values for the 6-20 scale. The 500m segment RPE values were significantly less than their corresponding values at the end of the 1500m and 2000m race segments. Additionally, the 1000m segment was significantly less than the 2000m race segment, indicating an incremental perceptual strain as the race continued no matter the race trial or recovery time point that was measured. An increased heart rate was observed between the 500m race segment and corresponding values for the 1500m and 2000m race segments. No differences were observed within the race segment for 6 or 24 hour recovery time points. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between the corresponding race segments of 1000m to 2000m, indicating a relative steady state in physiological function. Interestingly, the heart rate and RPE were not significantly correlated (r = −0.008, P ≤ 0.05). This further supports the separation of physiological strain from psycho-perceptual demands in this 2K race. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of significant physical fatigue, there was evidence of increased perceptual strain during each race trial, as average power was maintained throughout despite increases in ratings of perceived exertion. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: From a practical perspective, it appears that it did not matter if rowers had 6 or 24 hours recovery time between subsequent “all-out” 2000m performances on a rowing ergometer. This seems to demonstrate not only the highly trained nature of collegiate rowers but also their mental toughness and ability to psychologically absorb and tolerate the physical stress of “all out” 2000m rowing performance.