Team sport athletes’ perceptions and use of recovery strategies: a mixed-methods survey study

Crowther, Fiona; Sealey, Rebecca; Crowe, Melissa; Edwards, Andrew M.; Halson, Shona L.

doi:10.1186/s13102-017-0071-3

Cited by 62 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…ACT even had a negative effect on perceived recovery and on the structural muscle damage and neurohumoral regulation assessed by circulating CK and f-T. This result supports recently published reviews reporting that ACT is largely ineffective for improving most psychophysiological markers of post-exercise recovery [ 7 , 35 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Effects of different recovery strategies following a half-marathon on fatigue markers in recreational runners

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo investigate the effects of different recovery strategies on fatigue markers following a prolonged running exercise.Methods46 recreational male runners completed a half-marathon, followed by active recovery (ACT), cold water immersion (CWI), massage (MAS) or passive recovery (PAS). Countermovement jump height, muscle soreness and perceived recovery and stress were measured 24h before the half-marathon (pre), immediately after the recovery intervention (postrec) and 24h after the race (post24). In addition, muscle contractile properties and blood markers of fatigue were determined at pre and post24.ResultsMagnitude-based inferences revealed substantial differences in the changes between the groups. At postrec, ACT was harmful to perceived recovery (ACT vs. PAS: effect size [ES] = −1.81) and serum concentration of creatine kinase (ACT vs. PAS: ES = 0.42), with CWI being harmful to jump performance (CWI vs. PAS: ES = −0.98). It was also beneficial for reducing muscle soreness (CWI vs. PAS: ES = −0.88) and improving perceived stress (CWI vs. PAS: ES = −0.64), with MAS being beneficial for reducing muscle soreness (MAS vs. PAS: ES = −0.52) and improving perceived recovery (MAS vs. PAS: ES = 1.00). At post24, both CWI and MAS were still beneficial for reducing muscle soreness (CWI vs. PAS: ES = 1.49; MAS vs. PAS: ES = 1.12), with ACT being harmful to perceived recovery (ACT vs. PAS: ES = −0.68), serum concentration of creatine kinase (ACT vs. PAS: ES = 0.84) and free-testosterone (ACT vs. PAS: ES = −0.91).ConclusionsIn recreational runners, a half-marathon results in fatigue symptoms lasting at least 24h. To restore subjective fatigue measures, the authors recommend CWI and MAS, as these recovery strategies are more effective than PAS, with ACT being even disadvantageous. However, runners must be aware that neither the use of ACT nor CWI or MAS had any beneficial effect on objective fatigue markers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Effects of different recovery strategies following a half-marathon on fatigue markers in recreational runners

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Active cool-downs that combine exercise with cold water immersion [ 25 ] are also excluded. We have also restricted the review to studies that have investigated the effects of performing an active cool-down within approximately 1 h after exercise, because findings from a recent survey suggest that this most closely replicates the cool-down procedure of many recreational and professional athletes [ 7 ]. Studies that have applied an active recovery for several days after exercise are only discussed if they have (1) applied the active recovery within 1 h after exercise (i.e., active cool-down) and (2) evaluated recovery before applying the active recovery on the next day.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An active cool-down is believed to have many physiological benefits compared with a passive cool-down, such as a faster recovery of heart rate, less muscle soreness, and more rapid reduction of metabolic by-products [ 7 ]. The evidence for these supposed physiological benefits is reviewed in the following sections.…”

Section: Physiological Effects Of An Active Cool-downmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do We Need a Cool-Down After Exercise? A Narrative Review of the Psychophysiological Effects and the Effects on Performance, Injuries and the Long-Term Adaptive Response

Hooren

Peake

2018

Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely believed that an active cool-down is more effective for promoting post-exercise recovery than a passive cool-down involving no activity. However, research on this topic has never been synthesized and it therefore remains largely unknown whether this belief is correct. This review compares the effects of various types of active cool-downs with passive cool-downs on sports performance, injuries, long-term adaptive responses, and psychophysiological markers of post-exercise recovery. An active cool-down is largely ineffective with respect to enhancing same-day and next-day(s) sports performance, but some beneficial effects on next-day(s) performance have been reported. Active cool-downs do not appear to prevent injuries, and preliminary evidence suggests that performing an active cool-down on a regular basis does not attenuate the long-term adaptive response. Active cool-downs accelerate recovery of lactate in blood, but not necessarily in muscle tissue. Performing active cool-downs may partially prevent immune system depression and promote faster recovery of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. However, it is unknown whether this reduces the likelihood of post-exercise illnesses, syncope, and cardiovascular complications. Most evidence indicates that active cool-downs do not significantly reduce muscle soreness, or improve the recovery of indirect markers of muscle damage, neuromuscular contractile properties, musculotendinous stiffness, range of motion, systemic hormonal concentrations, or measures of psychological recovery. It can also interfere with muscle glycogen resynthesis. In summary, based on the empirical evidence currently available, active cool-downs are largely ineffective for improving most psychophysiological markers of post-exercise recovery, but may nevertheless offer some benefits compared with a passive cool-down.

show abstract

“…High performance athletes employ a variety of strategies [ 1 , 2 ] with the intention of accelerating their recovery [ 3 ]. Non-elite levels of athlete have also been shown to undertake a number of different recovery strategies post-exercise [ 4 ], potentially to decrease soreness and improve subsequent performance. The efficacy of numerous recovery strategies has been explored in scientific studies and also in practical sport applications, with some strategies being used without compelling supportive evidence [ 3 , 5 , 6 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Water immersion recovery strategies such as cold water immersion (CWI) and contrast water therapy (CWT) are used by athletes across a range of competition levels [ 4 ] to enhance post-exercise recovery [ 6 – 8 ]. Cold water immersion reportedly minimises muscle oedema and provides analgesic effects post-exercise [ 8 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of recovery strategies upon performance and perceptions following fatiguing exercise: a randomized controlled trial

Crowther

Sealey

Crowe

et al. 2017

BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Team sport athletes’ perceptions and use of recovery strategies: a mixed-methods survey study

Cited by 62 publications

References 33 publications

Effects of different recovery strategies following a half-marathon on fatigue markers in recreational runners

Effects of different recovery strategies following a half-marathon on fatigue markers in recreational runners

Do We Need a Cool-Down After Exercise? A Narrative Review of the Psychophysiological Effects and the Effects on Performance, Injuries and the Long-Term Adaptive Response

Influence of recovery strategies upon performance and perceptions following fatiguing exercise: a randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About