BackgroundA variety of recovery strategies are used by athletes, although there is currently no research that investigates perceptions and usage of recovery by different competition levels of team sport athletes.MethodsThe recovery techniques used by team sport athletes of different competition levels was investigated by survey. Specifically this study investigated if, when, why and how the following recovery strategies were used: active land-based recovery (ALB), active water-based recovery (AWB), stretching (STR), cold water immersion (CWI) and contrast water therapy (CWT).ResultsThree hundred and thirty-one athletes were surveyed. Fifty-seven percent were found to utilise one or more recovery strategies. Stretching was rated the most effective recovery strategy (4.4/5) with ALB considered the least effective by its users (3.6/5). The water immersion strategies were considered effective/ineffective mainly due to psychological reasons; in contrast STR and ALB were considered to be effective/ineffective mainly due to physical reasons.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that athletes may not be aware of the specific effects that a recovery strategy has upon their physical recovery and thus athlete and coach recovery education is encouraged. This study also provides new information on the prevalence of different recovery strategies and contextual information that may be useful to inform best practice among coaches and athletes.

BackgroundDespite debate regarding their effectiveness, many different post-exercise recovery strategies are used by athletes. This study compared five post-exercise recovery strategies (cold water immersion, contrast water immersion, active recovery, a combined cold water immersion and active recovery and a control condition) to determine which is most effective for subsequent short-term performance and perceived recovery.MethodsThirty-four recreationally active males undertook a simulated team-game fatiguing circuit followed by the above recovery strategies (randomized, 1 per week). Prior to the fatiguing exercise, and at 1, 24 and 48 h post-exercise, perceptual, flexibility and performance measures were assessed.ResultsContrast water immersion significantly enhanced perceptual recovery 1 h after fatiguing exercise in comparison to active and control recovery strategies. Cold water immersion and the combined recovery produced detrimental jump power performance at 1 h compared to the control and active recovery strategies. No recovery strategy was different to the control at 24 and 48 h for either perceptual or performance variables.ConclusionFor short term perceptual recovery, contrast water therapy should be implemented and for short-term countermovement power performance an active or control recovery is desirable. At 24 and 48 h, no superior recovery strategy was detected.Trial registrationRetrospectively registered; ISRCTN14415088; 5/11/2017.

Crowther, FA, Sealey, RM, Crowe, MJ, Edwards, AM, and Halson, SL. Effects of various recovery strategies on repeated bouts of simulated intermittent activity. J Strength Cond Res 33(7): 1781–1794, 2019—A large variety of recovery strategies are used between and after bouts of exercise to maximize performance and perceptual recovery, with limited conclusive evidence regarding the effectiveness of these strategies. The aim of this study was to compare 5 postexercise recovery strategies (cold water immersion, contrast water therapy, active recovery, a combined cold water immersion and active recovery, and a control condition) to determine which is most effective for the recovery of performance, perceptual, and flexibility measures during and after repeated bouts of simulated small-sided team sport demands. Fourteen recreationally active males (mean ± SD; age: 26 ± 6 years; height: 180 ± 5 cm; mass: 81 ± 9 kg) undertook repeated bouts of exercise, simulating a rugby sevens tournament day followed by the above listed recovery strategies (randomized, 1 per week). Perceptual, performance, and flexibility variables were measured immediately before, 5 minutes after all 3 exercise bouts, and at 75 minutes after the first 2 exercise bouts. Contrast water therapy was found to be superior to active at 75 minutes after bout 2 and 5 minutes after bout 3 for repeated-sprint ability and relative average power. The combined recovery strategy was superior to active for repeated-sprint ability at 5 minutes after bout 3; relative best power at 5 minutes after bout 2; total quality recovery before bout 2, 75 minutes after bout 2, and before bout 3; was superior to active for muscle soreness from 75 minutes after bout 1 and for the remainder of the day; and was superior to the control at 75 minutes after bout 1, 75 minutes after bout 2, and before bout 3. The active recovery was detrimental to total sprint time and relative average power at 75 minutes after bout 2 and 5 minutes after bout 3 in comparison with contrast water therapy and the control (not relative average power). Relative average power was decreased after active at 5 minutes after bout 2 in comparison with the combined recovery strategy and the control. Relative average power after cold water immersion was decreased at 75 minutes after bout 2 in comparison with the control and contrast water therapy. Total quality recovery was significantly reduced after active in comparison with the combined recovery strategy before bout 2, 75 minutes after bout 2, and before bout 3. Muscle soreness was also significantly increased after active recovery at 75 minutes after bout 1 and for the remainder of the day in comparison with the combined recovery strategy and was increased at 5 minutes after bout 3 in comparison with the control. Active recovery is not recommended because of the detrimental performance and perceptual results noted. As no recovery strategies were significantly better than the control condition for performance recovery and the combined recovery strategy is the only superior recovery strategy in comparison with the control for perceptual recovery (muscle soreness only), it is difficult to recommend a recovery strategy that should be used for both performance and perceptual recovery. Thus, based on the methodology and findings of this study unless already in use by athletes, no water immersion recovery strategies are recommended in preference to a control because of the resource-intensive (time and equipment) nature of water immersion recovery strategies.

No abstract

No abstract