Upper and lower body responses to repeated cyclical sprints.

PURPOSE: To compare the physiological and perceptual responses of the upper and lower body to all-out cyclical sprints with short or long rest periods between sprints. METHODS: Ten recreationally trained males completed four 10 × 10 s sprint protocols in a randomized order: upper body with 30 s and 180 s of rest between sprints, and lower body with 30 s and 180 s of rest between sprints. Additionally, maximum voluntary contractions (MVC) were measured at pre-sprint and post-sprints 5 and 10. Normalized (% of first sprint) peak power, MVC, heart rate (HR) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were compared between upper and lower body within the same recovery period, and absolute values (Watts, bpm, RPE scores) were compared within the same body part and between recovery periods. RESULTS: Trivial differences were identified in normalized peak power, HR and RPE values between the upper and lower body in both recovery conditions (<2%, d ≤ 0.1), but MVC forces were better maintained with the upper body (∼9.5%, d = 1.0) in both recovery conditions. Absolute peak power was lower (∼147 Watts, d = 1.3), and HR was higher (∼10 bpm, d = 0.73) in the 30 s compared to 180 s condition in both the upper and lower body whereas RPE scores were similar (<0.6 RPE units, d ≤ 0.1). Despite the reductions in peak power, MVC forces were better maintained in the 30 s condition in both upper (2.5 kg, d = 0.4) and lower (7.5 kg, d = 0.7) body. CONCLUSIONS: Completing a commonly used repeated sprint protocol with the upper and lower body results in comparable normalized physiological and perceptual responses.

Repeated sprint ability but not neuromuscular fatigue is dependent on short versus long duration recovery time between sprints in healthy males.

OBJECTIVES: During maximal intensity leg cycling sprints, previous research has shown that central and peripheral fatigue development occurs with various (<30s) short-duration recovery periods between sprints. The aim of the current study was to compare the development of neuromuscular fatigue during maximal intensity lower-body sprints interspersed with short and longer duration recovery periods. DESIGN: Crossover study. METHODS: Ten participants completed 10, 10s sprints interspersed with either 30 or 180s of recovery. Peak power outputs were measured for each sprint. Maximal force, voluntary activation (VA) and evoked contractile properties of the knee extensors were measured at pre-sprint 1, post-sprint 5 and post-sprint 10. Perceived pain was also measured immediately following each sprint. RESULTS: Peak power output was significantly lower by 16.1±4.2% (p<0.001) during sprint 10 with 30 compared to 180s of recovery. Irrespective of recovery time, maximal force, VA and potentiated twitch force decreased by 26.7±7.2% (p<0.005), 5.8±1.2% (p=0.025), 38.7±6.1% (p=0.003) respectively, from pre-sprint 1 to post-sprint 10. MVC and PT decreased by 17±4% (p<0.003) and 23±9% (p<0.002) respectively, from pre-sprint 1 to post-sprint 5. CONCLUSIONS: Although decreases in peak power and increases in perceived pain were greater when sprints were interspersed with 30 compared to 180s of recovery, the development of neuromuscular fatigue of the knee extensors was similar. The results illustrate that peripheral fatigue developed early whereas central fatigue developed later in the sprint protocol, however the effect of recovery time on neuromuscular fatigue could be task specific.