A carregar...
Publicação
O Impacto de Diferentes Estratégias de Recuperação no Desempenho e na Fadiga após Cronoescalada
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 735.11 KB | Adobe PDF |
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
Este estudo teve como objetivo comparar os efeitos da recuperação ativa vs. passiva após
uma prova de ciclismo de estrada em subida no desempenho mecânico, fisiológico e
psicofisiológico. Num estudo cruzado, nove ciclistas (experiência de ciclismo: 8.0 ± 2.3
anos; idade: 22.1 ± 2.9 anos; massa corporal: 70.0 ± 7.9 kg; altura: 1.74 ± 0.08 m) foram
submetidos a dois tipos de recuperação, cada um realizado com um intervalo de 8 dias,
após uma prova de ciclismo de estrada em subida de aproximadamente 10 km. A
recuperação ativa consistiu em pedalar num sistema de rolos durante 30 minutos entre
os 60 e 70% da frequência cardíaca máxima prevista, enquanto a recuperação passiva
consistiu em repouso completo (ciclistas sentados na cadeira) durante 30 minutos. Após
a prova e após os períodos de recuperação, foram avaliadas as seguintes variáveis: salto
vertical com contramovimento (SVC), lançamento da bola medicinal (LBM), frequência
cardíaca (FC), lactato sanguíneo (LAC) e perceção subjetiva de esforço (PSE). A
percentagem de mudança (%?) do pós-prova para o pós-recuperação nas diferentes
variáveis foi comparada através de um teste t de amostras emparelhadas, com a
magnitude das diferenças analisadas através do tamanho do efeito de Hedge’s g. Os
resultados indicaram que a recuperação ativa, em comparação com a recuperação
passiva, induziu maior aumentos de desempenho no SCV (p=0.002; g=1.56) e LBM
(p=0.009; g=0.95) e promoveu uma maior diminuição da lactatemia (p<0.001; g=3.44).
Por outro lado, a recuperação passiva induziu um maior decréscimo na frequência
cardíaca do que a recuperação ativa (p<0.001; g=3.35). Não se registaram diferenças
entre as duas estratégias de recuperação na PSE (p=0.18; g=0.63). Em síntese, este
estudo sugere que a recuperação ativa pode ser relevante entre etapas de ciclismo
consecutivas, treinos intervalados ou provas em dias sucessivos, enquanto a recuperação
passiva pode ser aconselhável quando o objetivo passa por promover um repouso
autonómico completo.
This study aimed to compare the effects of active vs. passive recovery following an uphill road cycling trial on mechanical, physiological, and psychophysiological performance. In a crossover design, nine cyclists (cycling experience: 8.0 ± 2.3 years; age: 22.1 ± 2.9 years; body mass: 70.0 ± 7.9 kg; height: 1.74 ± 0.08 m) underwent two types of recovery, each performed eight days apart, following an uphill road cycling test of approximately 10 km. Active recovery consisted of pedaling on a roller system for 30 minutes at 60– 70% of the predicted maximal heart rate, while passive recovery involved complete rest (cyclists seated on a chair) for 30 minutes. After the trial and after each recovery period, the following variables were assessed: countermovement jump (CMJ), medicine ball throw (MBT), heart rate (HR), blood lactate concentration (LAC), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE). The percentage change (%?) from post-exercise to post-recovery in the different variables was compared using a paired samples t-test, with the magnitude of the differences analyzed through Hedge’s g effect size. Results indicated that active recovery, compared to passive recovery, induced greater performance improvements in CMJ (p = 0.002; g = 1.56) and MBT (p = 0.009; g = 0.95), and promoted a greater reduction in blood lactate concentration (p < 0.001; g = 3.44). Conversely, passive recovery induced a greater decrease in heart rate than active recovery (p < 0.001; g = 3.35). No significant differences were observed between the two recovery strategies for RPE (p = 0.18; g = 0.63). In summary, this study suggests that active recovery may be particularly relevant between consecutive cycling stages, interval training sessions, or multi-day competitions, whereas passive recovery may be advisable when the main goal is to promote complete autonomic rest.
This study aimed to compare the effects of active vs. passive recovery following an uphill road cycling trial on mechanical, physiological, and psychophysiological performance. In a crossover design, nine cyclists (cycling experience: 8.0 ± 2.3 years; age: 22.1 ± 2.9 years; body mass: 70.0 ± 7.9 kg; height: 1.74 ± 0.08 m) underwent two types of recovery, each performed eight days apart, following an uphill road cycling test of approximately 10 km. Active recovery consisted of pedaling on a roller system for 30 minutes at 60– 70% of the predicted maximal heart rate, while passive recovery involved complete rest (cyclists seated on a chair) for 30 minutes. After the trial and after each recovery period, the following variables were assessed: countermovement jump (CMJ), medicine ball throw (MBT), heart rate (HR), blood lactate concentration (LAC), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE). The percentage change (%?) from post-exercise to post-recovery in the different variables was compared using a paired samples t-test, with the magnitude of the differences analyzed through Hedge’s g effect size. Results indicated that active recovery, compared to passive recovery, induced greater performance improvements in CMJ (p = 0.002; g = 1.56) and MBT (p = 0.009; g = 0.95), and promoted a greater reduction in blood lactate concentration (p < 0.001; g = 3.44). Conversely, passive recovery induced a greater decrease in heart rate than active recovery (p < 0.001; g = 3.35). No significant differences were observed between the two recovery strategies for RPE (p = 0.18; g = 0.63). In summary, this study suggests that active recovery may be particularly relevant between consecutive cycling stages, interval training sessions, or multi-day competitions, whereas passive recovery may be advisable when the main goal is to promote complete autonomic rest.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Ciclismo Desempenho Físico Estrada Fadiga Lactatemia Recuperação Resposta Cardiovascular