<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bogdanis, G.C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Effects of active recovery on power output during repeated maximal sprint cycling</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1996</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0029902368&amp;partnerID=40&amp;md5=2d78571510a91aa44d315cedf601f6d7</style></url></web-urls></urls><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">74</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">461-469</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The effects of active recovery on metabolic and cardiorespiratory responses and power output were examined during repeated sprints. Male subjects (n = 13) performed two maximal 30-s cycle ergometer sprints, 4 min apart, on two separate occasions with either an active [cycling at 40 (1)% of maximal oxygen uptake; mean (SEM)] or passive recovery. Active recovery resulted in a significantly higher mean power output (W̄) during sprint 2, compared with passive recovery [W̄] 603 (17) W and 589 (15) W, P &amp;lt; 0.05]. This improvement was totally attributed to a 3.1 (1.0)% higher power generation during the initial 10 s of sprint 2 following the active recovery (P &amp;lt; 0.05), since power output during the last 20 s sprint 2 was the same after both recoveries. Despite the higher power output during sprint 2 after active recovery, no differences were observed between conditions in venous blood lactate and pH, but peak plasma ammonia was significantly higher in the active recovery condition [205 (23) vs 170 (20) μmol·l-1; P &amp;lt; 0.05]. No differences were found between active and passive recovery in terms of changes in plasma volume or arterial blood pressure throughout the test. However, heart rate between the two 30-s sprints and oxygen uptake during the second sprint were higher for the active compared with passive recovery [148 (3) vs 130 (4) beats min-1; P &amp;lt; 0.01) and 3.3 (0.1) vs 2.8 (0.1) l·min-1; P &amp;lt; 0.01]. These data suggest that recovery of power output during repeated sprint exercise is enhanced when low-intensity exercise is performed between sprints. The beneficial effects of an active recovery are possibly mediated by an increased blood flow to the previously exercised muscle.</style></abstract><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cited By 96</style></notes></record></records></xml>