The acute physiological and perceptual effects of recovery interval intensity during cycling-based high-intensity interval training

PURPOSE: The current study sought to investigate the role of recovery intensity on the physiological and perceptual responses during cycling-based aerobic high-intensity interval training. METHODS: Fourteen well-trained cyclists ([Formula: see text] : 62 ± 9 mL kg(−1) min(−1)) completed seven laboratory visits. At visit 1, the participants’ peak oxygen consumption ([Formula: see text] ) and lactate thresholds were determined. At visits 2–7, participants completed either a 6 × 4 min or 3 × 8 min high-intensity interval training (HIIT) protocol with one of three recovery intensity prescriptions: passive (PA) recovery, active recovery at 80% of lactate threshold (80A) or active recovery at 110% of lactate threshold (110A). RESULTS: The time spent at > 80%, > 90% and > 95% of maximal minute power during the work intervals was significantly increased with PA recovery, when compared to both 80A and 110A, during both HIIT protocols (all P ≤ 0.001). However, recovery intensity had no effect on the time spent at > 90% [Formula: see text] (P = 0.11) or > 95% [Formula: see text] (P = 0.50) during the work intervals of both HIIT protocols. Session RPE was significantly higher following the 110A recovery, when compared to the PA and 80A recovery during both HIIT protocols (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Passive recovery facilitates a higher work interval PO and similar internal stress for a lower sRPE when compared to active recovery and therefore may be the efficacious recovery intensity prescription.