REF-1296 · Borges et al., 2018 · Experimental Aging Research · Paper · PubMed

Do masters athletes need longer between hard sessions?

In 9 masters (56 y) vs 8 young trained cyclists, sprint, strength and 30-min TT power recovered alike over 48 h after 6×30-s intervals; masters felt less recovered. B-.

Main caveat: Small, one bout. 9 vs 8 riders after a single session; underpowered to detect modest physical differences.
limited, mixed evidenceMeasured on trained athletes

Borges et al. compared recovery after one high-intensity interval session in 9 well-trained masters cyclists (55.6 ± 5.0 y) and 8 young ones (25.9 ± 3.0 y), recruited from cycling and triathlon clubs and matched on weekly training distance, VO2max and peak power (the masters' VO2max and relative peak power were still moderately lower).

The session was 6 × 30 s at 175% of peak power output with 4.5 min of rest. Knee-extensor strength (isometric MVC), 10-s sprint peak power and creatine kinase were measured before, 1 h, 24 h and 48 h after, perceived motivation, fatigue, total quality of recovery and soreness at baseline, 24 and 48 h, and a 30-min time trial at 48 h.

Diet was standardised (5 g/kg carbohydrate, 2 g/kg protein a day). Sprint power dropped about 5% at 1 h in both groups and recovered alike; there was no group-by-time interaction for strength (P = 0.94), sprint power (P = 0.52) or time-trial power (P = 0.40), and creatine kinase hardly changed.

For perceived fatigue the interaction was significant (P = 0.01), but post hoc tests found no difference at any time point; by effect sizes the young riders felt more fatigued at 24 h (1.29 ± 1.17), and at 48 h the masters reported lower motivation (0.69 ± 0.77), more fatigue (0.75 ± 0.93) and more soreness (0.61 ± 0.70).

The authors suggest masters may need more time between sessions for psychological recovery and should monitor perceptual measures. Our reading: one small study in which physical recovery from a short sprint session was not slower in masters in their 50s; it supports SYNTH-35's "widen the gaps on recovery signals, not on age", and the perceptual lag is a hint, not a finding.

Protocol

Design: cross-sectional comparison; two preliminary sessions (familiarisation, anthropometry, baseline MVC, graded test; then 10-s sprint and 30-min time trial), then three sessions at the same time of day over three consecutive days. Ethics: Central Queensland University Human Ethics Research Panel.
Participants: n = 17 well-trained cyclists and triathletes from local clubs — 9 masters (55.6 ± 5.0 y) and 8 young (25.9 ± 3.0 y); body mass 81.6 and 79.1 kg; VO2max 54.2 ± 10.3 and 62.0 ± 9.8 mL/kg/min (ES 0.63 ± 0.79); peak power 348.0 and 364.2 W (4.3 and 4.6 W/kg); training 228.0 ± 69.6 and 213.1 ± 128.7 km a week. Sex not reported.
Session: 6-min warm-up at 100 W with three 3-s accelerations; 6 × 30 s at 175% of peak power output (Velotron), 4.5 min between efforts including 2 min easy pedalling at 50 W; then 40 min supine passive rest.
Measures: 10-s sprint peak power (load 9% of body mass) and isometric knee-extensor MVC (Biodex, 90°) at baseline, 1 h, 24 h, 48 h; venous creatine kinase at the same points; 30-min self-paced time trial (average power) at baseline (preliminary session) and 48 h; perceived motivation, fatigue and total quality of recovery (Likert) and soreness (100-mm visual analogue scale) at baseline, 24 h and 48 h.
Diet: prescribed to give 5 g/kg/day carbohydrate and 2 g/kg/day protein over the three testing days.
Analysis: two-way repeated-measures ANOVA (group × time) with Tukey post hoc tests; effect sizes with 90% CI for the between-group difference in change from baseline (trivial < 0.20, small 0.2-0.59, moderate 0.60-1.19, large 1.20-1.99; unclear when the 90% CI crosses ±0.2).
Funding and interests: no funding or conflict-of-interest statement appears in the accepted manuscript read; the published version was not checked.

Key Results

Measure (mean ± SD)Masters: baseline → 1 h / 24 h / 48 hYoung: baseline → 1 h / 24 h / 48 hGroup × timeBetween-group ES of change
MVC, Nm225 ± 42 → 207 / 215 / 214250 ± 43 → 237 / 238 / 242P = 0.940.09, 0.04, 0.07 (all unclear)
10-s sprint peak power, W1011 ± 73 → 955* / 995 / 9901085 ± 117 → 1027* / 1051 / 1075P = 0.520.02, 0.17, 0.09 (unclear/trivial)
30-min time trial, W (48 h only)232 ± 34 → 230 ± 29 (−0.9%)241 ± 25 → 251 ± 25 (+3.8%)P = 0.400.22 ± 0.43 (unclear)
Creatine kinase, U/L161 → 170.7 / 178 / 147229 → 249.6 / 234 / 224no interaction or time effecttrivial/unclear

\* significantly below baseline at 1 h in both groups (masters P = 0.002, young P = 0.003).

Perceptual measures: significant group × time interaction for fatigue (F(2,30) = 4.956, P = 0.01); none for motivation (P = 0.69), total quality of recovery (P = 0.18) or soreness (P = 0.12); post hoc tests found no differences across time points or between groups.
Perceptual effect sizes (between-group change from baseline, ±90% CI): at 24 h young riders reported more fatigue (1.29 ± 1.17, large); at 48 h masters reported lower motivation (0.69 ± 0.77), greater fatigue (0.75 ± 0.93) and greater soreness (0.61 ± 0.70), each called "moderate" — each interval crosses ±0.2 (lower bounds −0.08, −0.18 and −0.09, our arithmetic), the authors' own criterion for "unclear".
Strength at 1 h: MVC fell more than 5% in both groups (−7.8% masters, −5.3% young).
Muscle damage: creatine kinase changed less than about 10% (masters +10.4% at 24 h); the authors conclude the session caused little muscle damage, as expected for mostly concentric cycling.

Mechanisms

Measured: acute fatigue (sprint power −5%, strength −5 to −8% at 1 h) and its recovery over 24-48 h were alike in masters and young riders; creatine kinase showed no muscle damage in either.
Authors' interpretation: continued systematic training preserves masters athletes' physical recovery capacity after non-damaging exercise; the perceived lag at 48 h may reflect altered perception or reporting of fatigue with age, and could affect training practice and long-term participation.Exercise with more eccentric load (long-distance running) may still slow masters' physical recovery, as in a trail-running study and their own data on lower muscle protein synthesis in masters triathletes.
Inference: the significant fatigue interaction may be driven as much by the young riders' 24-h peak as by the masters' 48-h values; with 9 and 8 riders the perceptual pattern could be noise.

Practical Application

Do masters athletes need longer between hard sessions? In 9 masters (56 y) vs 8 young trained cyclists, sprint, strength and 30-min TT power recovered alike over 48 h after 6×30-s intervals; masters felt less recovered. B-.
Space hard days on how the athlete feels and performs, not on the birth certificate (B-, supports [SYNTH-35]): physical markers did not justify an age rule here; perceived recovery is the signal that may lag in masters, so ask about motivation, fatigue and soreness before the next hard day.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: 48-72 h between quality days is the starting point for masters, adjusted on recovery signals (SYNTH-35); two quality days as the house starting point, a third added "only as a 2-4-week block when recovery signals allow" and removed "on recovery signals, not on age" (SYNTH-35; SYNTH-26's table gives two on four to seven sessions a week, a third only as a 2-4-week block, and says not to add a third to catch up at 5-8 h).This study measured one sprint session, not a training week.
Running is a different case (authors' speculation, not tested): eccentric, muscle-damaging sessions may slow physical recovery more in masters; this study's cycling session did not damage muscle.

Limitations

Small, one bout. 9 vs 8 riders after a single session; underpowered to detect modest physical differences.
The perceptual finding is weak. No significant post hoc differences; the 48-h effect sizes are labelled moderate though each 90% CI crosses ±0.2, which the methods define as unclear.
Matching incomplete. Masters had moderately lower VO2max (54.2 vs 62.0) and relative peak power (4.3 vs 4.6 W/kg); sex was not reported.
Session type. Short supramaximal sprints with long rests, not threshold or VO2max intervals; cycling, with little eccentric load.
Masters relatively young. The conclusion calls them "relatively young (<55yrs)" although their mean age was 55.6.
Reporting. The abstract gives creatine kinase changes "< 10%"; the masters' 24-h change is +10.4%.
Source. Read from the accepted manuscript; numbers and wording may differ slightly from the published version. No funding or conflict-of-interest statement in that manuscript.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

n = 17 (9 masters, 8 young), read from the author accepted manuscript (University of Waikato repository copy listed by OpenAlex, green open access). A small cross-sectional comparison (B); held at B- because the headline finding (slower perceived recovery in masters) was not significant in post hoc tests and, by the authors' own rule that an effect whose 90% CI crosses ±0.2 is unclear, each 48-h perceptual effect is unclear — while the physical null rests on 17 riders

Full text (checked 2026-10-27)
Nine masters (mean ± SD; age = 55.6 ± 5.0 years) and eight young (age = 25.9 ± 3.0 years) cyclists performed 6 x 30 second intervals at 175% peak power output with 4.5 minutes rest between efforts (full text)
No significant interaction effects were found for MVC (P = 0.94), 10SST (P = 0.52) and 30TT average power (P = 0.40) (full text)
A significant decrease in 10SST for both masters (P = 0.002) and young (P = 0.003) cyclists from baseline to 1-hour post exercise (full text)
A significant interaction effect for FAT (F(2,30) = 4.956, P = 0.01); post hoc analyses revealed no significant differences across time points or between groups (P > 0.05) (full text)
At 48 hours masters cyclists reported lower MOT (ES = 0.69 ±0.77), greater FAT (ES = 0.75 ±0.93) and greater SOR (ES = 0.61 ±0.70); at 24 hours a higher FAT response in the young cyclists (ES = 1.29 ±1.17) (full text)
When the 90%CI of the ES crossed the threshold of ±0.2, effect was deemed unclear (full text)
VO2max 54.2 ± 10.3 (masters) and 62.0 ± 9.8 (young) mL·kg-1·min-1; training per week 228.0 ± 69.6 and 213.1 ± 128.7 km (full text)