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.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the concurrent validity and reliability of the Simple Goniometer iPhone® app compared to the Universal Goniometer.Design: Within subject comparison design comparing the Universal Goniometer with the Simple Goniometer app.Setting: James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.Participants: Thirty-six volunteer participants, with a mean age of 60.6 years (SD 6.2). Interventions: Not applicable.Main Outcome measure: Thirty-six participants performed three standing lunges during which the knee joint angle was measured with the Simple Goniometer app and the Universal Goniometer.Results: There were no significant differences in the measures of individual knee joint angles between the Universal Goniometer and the Simple Goniometer app. Pearson correlations of 0.96-0.98 and intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.97-0.99 (95% CI 0.95-1.00) were recorded for all measures. Using the Bland-Altman method, the standard error of the mean of the differences and the standard deviation of the mean of the differences were low. Conclusion:The measurements from the Simple Goniometer iPhone® app were reliable and possessed concurrent validity for this sample and protocol when compared to the Universal Goniometer.
The current study explored the effects of short haul air travel within the same country on elite Australian rugby league (RL) players (n=12) during two away and two home games of elite competition. Physiological tests of handgrip strength and leg power were assessed along with psychological tests and perceptions of leg soreness and tiredness on the day before the game (Time 1 and Time 2) and on game day (Time 3). Game statistics of tackles and metres gained were assessed for the games analysed. Significant differences were found for daily analyses of life demands for athletes (DALDA) worse than normal responses at Time 2 (2.50 ± 3.23 vs. 3.50 ± 3.93; P=0.04), Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS) at Time 2 (2.88 ± 1.51 vs. 3.71 ± 1.37; P=0.011) and leg tiredness at Time 3 (3.38 ± 1.66 vs. 2.35 ± 1.70; P=0.004) between home and away games. The analysis of game statistics identified that more metres were gained during home games (83.6 ± 49.1 vs. 63.0 ± 30.1; P=0.02) and more tackles made while playing away (18.4 ± 9.2 vs. 14.3 ± 6.7; P=0.016). The results suggest that short haul air travel without crossing time zones results in symptoms of travel fatigue but does not appear to negatively impact on elite RL players ability to perform strength and power tasks. Different game tactics (attacking vs. defensive) occurred between home and away games however, it is unclear whether travel fatigue or a home advantage (HA) is associated with this finding.
Multiple behavioural strategies were identified, which appear to be appropriate for sedentary behaviour change.
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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.