REF-1605 · Perrier-Melo et al., 2021 · The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness · Paper · PubMed

A systematic review of 26 randomised trials of high-intensity interval exercise counted passive recovery as giving more power in 4 of 17 power studies, faster sprints in 6 of 9 repeated-sprint studies and more distance in both distance studies, and concluded that passive recovery gives better performance; the abstract does not say what the other 13 power studies found, and the abstract reports no pooled estimate. From the abstract

Main caveat: Written from the abstract; no risk-of-bias assessment is reported there.
limited evidenceMeasured on a mixed groupRead from the abstract only

Perrier-Melo and colleagues asked whether active or passive recovery between bouts of high-intensity interval exercise leads to better performance in the bouts that follow.

Two reviewers searched PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central to February 2020 for randomised trials comparing recovery modes and found 26: 17 measuring power output, 9 repeated-sprint ability and 2 distance covered.

Passive recovery gave higher mechanical performance in four studies, faster sprinting in six of the nine sprint studies, and a greater distance in both distance studies of intermittent sprinting. The authors conclude that passive recovery during high-intensity interval exercise results in better performance than active recovery.

Participants

26 randomised trials; participant numbers, sex and training status are not given in the abstract.

Protocol

Search: PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central, to February 2020; PRISMA; two independent reviewers.
Eligibility: randomised trials comparing recovery modes (active versus passive) on performance during repeated high-intensity interval exercise.
Synthesis: a count of studies by outcome type; no pooled effect sizes in the abstract.

Key Results

26 studies: power output 17, repeated-sprint ability 9, distance covered 2.
Power output: four studies found higher mechanical performance with passive recovery; the abstract does not report the other 13.
Repeated sprints: six of nine studies found faster sprinting with passive recovery.
Distance: both studies found a greater distance covered with passive recovery.
Authors' conclusion: passive recovery between bouts gives greater performance than active recovery.

Practical Application

Between hard reps, the trials this review reports favour stopping over moving: across 26 randomised trials of interval exercise (participants not described in the abstract), passive recovery gave more power in 4 of 17 power studies, faster sprints in 6 of 9 and more distance in 2 of 2. This is a count of studies, not a pooled effect, and the abstract does not say how the other 13 power studies came out.
Inference, not tested here: what clears blood lactate fastest (moving) is not what restores the next maximal effort best; in REF-480 power recovery tracked phosphocreatine, not muscle pH.
This sits with REF-1363 (no difference in time near VO2max; passive allowed more work in exhaustive running protocols). Inference, not tested here: the answer likely depends on rep length, rest length and what is measured, which the abstract does not break down.
For short sprints the base already prescribes full rest (SYNTH-46); for short-short VO2max sets the base's guide ties their advantage to short active recoveries (SYNTH-80), a different question from long rests between maximal bouts.

Limitations

Written from the abstract; no risk-of-bias assessment is reported there.
Vote counting: the abstract reports only the studies favouring passive recovery; the results of 13 power studies are not described.
Protocols, rep and rest lengths, active-recovery intensities and populations are not given.
Three databases, searched to February 2020.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

capped at B+ because the risk of bias was not read (abstract only, rule 1), and one step lower because the verdict is a vote count in which only 4 of 17 power studies are said to favour passive recovery and the other 13 are not described