Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMcEwan, Garyen
dc.contributor.authorArthur, Rosieen
dc.contributor.authorPhillips, Shaun M.en
dc.contributor.authorGibson, Neil V.en
dc.contributor.authorEaston, Chrisen
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-04T10:27:52Z
dc.date.available2022-05-04T10:27:52Z
dc.date.issued2018-05-29
dc.identifier.citationMcEwan, G., Arthur, R., Phillips, S.M., Gibson, N.V. and Easton, C. (2018) 'Interval running with self-selected recovery: Physiology, performance, and perception', European Journal of Sport Science, 18(8), pp. 1058-1067.en
dc.identifier.issn1746-1391en
dc.identifier.issn1536-7290
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1472811
dc.identifier.urihttps://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/12165
dc.descriptionItem previously deposited in UWS repository at: https://research-portal.uws.ac.uk/en/publications/interval-running-with-self-selected-recovery-physiology-performanen
dc.descriptionItem not available in this repository.
dc.descriptionRosie Arthur – ORCID: 0000-0003-0651-4056 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0651-4056
dc.description.abstractThis study (1) compared the physiological responses and performance during a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) session incorporating externally regulated (ER) and self-selected (SS) recovery periods and (2) examined the psychophysiological cues underpinning SS recovery durations. Following an incremental maximal exercise test to determine maximal aerobic speed (MAS), 14 recreationally active males completed 2 HIIT sessions on a non-motorised treadmill. Participants performed 12 × 30 s running intervals at a target intensity of 105% MAS interspersed with 30 s (ER) or SS recovery periods. During SS, participants were instructed to provide themselves with sufficient recovery to complete all 12 efforts at the required intensity. A semi-structured interview was undertaken following the completion of SS. Mean recovery duration was longer during SS (51 ± 15 s) compared to ER (30 ± 0 s; p < .001; d = 1.46 ± 0.46). Between-interval heart rate recovery was higher (SS: 19 ± 9 b min−1; ER: 8 ± 5 b min−1; p < .001; d = 1.43 ± 0.43) and absolute time ≥90% maximal heart rate (HRmax) was lower (SS: 335 ± 193 s; ER: 433 ± 147 s; p = .075; d = 0.52 ± 0.39) during SS compared to ER. Relative time ≥105% MAS was greater during SS (90 ± 6%) compared to ER (74 ± 20%; p < .01; d = 0.87 ± 0.40). Different sources of afferent information underpinned decision-making during SS. The extended durations of recovery during SS resulted in a reduced time ≥90% HRmax but enhanced time ≥105% MAS, compared with ER exercise. Differences in the afferent cue utilisation of participants likely explain the large levels of inter-individual variability observed.en
dc.description.sponsorshipThe authors wish to thank Oriam: Scotland’s National Performance Centre who provided funding to support a Masters studentship for Gary McEwan.en
dc.description.urihttps://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1472811en
dc.format.extent1058-1067en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherRoutledgeen
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Journal of Sport Scienceen
dc.subjectFatigueen
dc.subjectExerciseen
dc.subjectPerformanceen
dc.subjectPhysiologyen
dc.subjectRecoveryen
dc.titleInterval running with self-selected recovery: Physiology, performance, and perceptionen
dc.typeArticleen
dcterms.accessRightsnone
dc.description.volume18en
dc.description.ispublishedpub
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen
rioxxterms.publicationdate2018-05-29
refterms.depositExceptionNAen
refterms.accessExceptionNAen
refterms.technicalExceptionNAen
refterms.panelUnspecifieden
qmu.authorArthur, Rosieen
qmu.authorMcEwan, Gary
dc.description.statuspub
dc.description.number8en
refterms.versionNAen


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record