A widespread belief among many coaches and athletes is that relatively large volumes of intense training must be performed to maximize gains in pera common training model used by coaches and athletes is based on the "overload principle" or "physical stress theory." 14 An essential component of the model is that high-intensity physical exercise creates a disturbance in cellular homeostasis. This disturbance then acts as a stimulus that initiates physiological responses to restore homeostasis and induce training adaptations. 14 t stUDY DesiGn: Randomized controlled trial using a repeated-measures design.t obJeCtiVes: To examine the effects of commonly used recovery interventions on time trial performance, immune changes, and psychological outcomes.t baCKGroUnD: The use of cryotherapy is popular among athletes, but few studies have simultaneously examined physiological and psychological responses to different recovery strategies.t MethoDs: Nine active men performed 3 trials, consisting of three 50-kJ "all out" cycling bouts, with 20 minutes of recovery after each bout. In a randomized order, different recovery interventions were applied after each ride for a given visit: rest, active recovery (cycling at 50 W), or cryotherapy (cold tub with water at 10°C). Blood samples obtained during each session were analyzed for lactate, IL-6, total leukocyte, neutrophil, and lymphocyte cell counts. Self-assessments of pain, perceived exertion, and lower extremity sensations were also completed.t resUlts: Time trial performance averaged 118  10 seconds (mean  SEM) for bout 1 and was 8% and 14% slower during bouts 2 (128  11 seconds) and 3 (134  11 seconds), respectively, with no difference between interventions (time effect, P.05). Recovery intervention did not influence lactate or IL-6, although greater mobilization of total leukocytes and neutrophils was observed with cryotherapy. Lymphopenia during recovery was greater with cryotherapy. Participants reported that their lower extremities felt better after cryotherapy (mean  SEM, 6.0  0.7 out of 10) versus active recovery (4.8  0.9) or rest (2.8  0.6) (trial effect, P.05).t ConClUsion: Common recovery interventions did not influence performance, although cryotherapy created greater immune cell perturbation and the perception that the participants' lower extremities felt better.t leVel oF eViDenCe: Performance enhancement, level 2b.

No abstract