Active vs. passive recovery for 6 s supramaximal cycle intervals
| dc.contributor.author | Doyle, Tracey Elizabeth | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-08-13T20:18:43Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-08-13T20:18:43Z | |
| dc.date.copyright | 1998 | en_US |
| dc.date.issued | 1998 | |
| dc.degree.department | School of Physical Education | |
| dc.degree.department | School of Exercise Science, Physical and Health Education | |
| dc.degree.level | Master of Science M.Sc. | en |
| dc.description.abstract | The purpose of this study was to determine which recovery mode (active, passive, or active + passive) allows for greater maintenance of power output over ten 6 s supramaximal cycle intervals and whether recovery length and the number of intervals performed influences the superiority of one mode of recovery compared to another. Twenty-one female subjects participating in varsity level field hockey, rugby, soccer, or basketball performed 10 intervals of 6 s all-out cycle sprints at a load equal to 100 g•kg -1 on six different occasions, with a minimum of 48 hrs in between testing sessions. The recovery intervals varied in duration (30 or 60 s) and type (active, passive, or half active + half passive), for a total of 6 different modes which were presented randomly. It was found that passive recovery or active+ passive recovery allows greater maintenance of peak power and mean power than active recovery whether recovery intervals are 30 or 6 s in duration and whether 5 or 10 intervals are performed. | |
| dc.format.extent | 60 pages | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1828/17647 | |
| dc.rights | Available to the World Wide Web | en_US |
| dc.title | Active vs. passive recovery for 6 s supramaximal cycle intervals | en_US |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_US |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
- Name:
- DOYLE_Tracey_Elizabeth_MSC_1998_745820.pdf
- Size:
- 15.92 MB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format