Freddy Brown1, Conor Gissane2, Glyn Howatson3,4, Ken van Someren5, Charles Pedlar2, Jessica Hill2. 1. School of Sport, Health and Applied Science, St Mary's University College, Twickenham, UK. Freddy.Brown@stmarys.ac.uk. 2. School of Sport, Health and Applied Science, St Mary's University College, Twickenham, UK. 3. Faculty of Health and Life of Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 4. Water Research Group, Northwest University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. 5. GSK Human Performance Lab, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adequate recovery from exercise is essential to maintain performance throughout training and competition. While compression garments (CG) have been demonstrated to accelerate recovery, the literature is clouded by conflicting results and uncertainty over the optimal conditions of use. OBJECTIVES: A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effects of CG on the recovery of strength, power and endurance performance following an initial bout of resistance, running, or non-load-bearing endurance (metabolic) exercise. METHODS: Change-score data were extracted from 23 peer-reviewed studies on healthy participants. Recovery was quantified by converting into standardized mean effect sizes (ES) [±95% confidence interval (CI)]. The effects of time (0-2, 2-8, 24, >24 h), pressure (<15 vs. ≥15 mmHg) and training status (trained vs. untrained) were also assessed. RESULTS: CG demonstrated small, very likely benefits [p < 0.001, ES = 0.38 (95% CI 0.25, 0.51)], which were not influenced by pressure (p = 0.06) or training status (p = 0.64). Strength recovery was subject to greater benefits than other outcomes [p < 0.001, ES = 0.62 (95% CI 0.39, 0.84)], displaying large, very likely benefits at 2-8 h [p < 0.001, ES = 1.14 (95% CI 0.72, 1.56)] and >24 h [p < 0.001, ES = 1.03 (95% CI 0.48, 1.57)]. Recovery from using CG was greatest following resistance exercise [p < 0.001, ES = 0.49 (95% CI 0.37, 0.61)], demonstrating the largest, very likely benefits at >24 h [p < 0.001, ES = 1.33 (95% CI 0.80, 1.85)]. Recovery from metabolic exercise (p = 0.01) was significant, although large, very likely benefits emerged only for cycling performance at 24 h post-exercise [p = 0.01, ES = 1.05 (95% CI 0.25, 1.85)]. CONCLUSION: The largest benefits resulting from CG were for strength recovery from 2 to 8 h and >24 h. Considering exercise modality, compression most effectively enhanced recovery from resistance exercise, particularly at time points >24 h. The use of CG would also be recommended to enhance next-day cycling performance. The benefits of CG in relation to applied pressures and participant training status are unclear and limited by the paucity of reported data.
BACKGROUND: Adequate recovery from exercise is essential to maintain performance throughout training and competition. While compression garments (CG) have been demonstrated to accelerate recovery, the literature is clouded by conflicting results and uncertainty over the optimal conditions of use. OBJECTIVES: A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effects of CG on the recovery of strength, power and endurance performance following an initial bout of resistance, running, or non-load-bearing endurance (metabolic) exercise. METHODS: Change-score data were extracted from 23 peer-reviewed studies on healthy participants. Recovery was quantified by converting into standardized mean effect sizes (ES) [±95% confidence interval (CI)]. The effects of time (0-2, 2-8, 24, >24 h), pressure (<15 vs. ≥15 mmHg) and training status (trained vs. untrained) were also assessed. RESULTS:CG demonstrated small, very likely benefits [p < 0.001, ES = 0.38 (95% CI 0.25, 0.51)], which were not influenced by pressure (p = 0.06) or training status (p = 0.64). Strength recovery was subject to greater benefits than other outcomes [p < 0.001, ES = 0.62 (95% CI 0.39, 0.84)], displaying large, very likely benefits at 2-8 h [p < 0.001, ES = 1.14 (95% CI 0.72, 1.56)] and >24 h [p < 0.001, ES = 1.03 (95% CI 0.48, 1.57)]. Recovery from using CG was greatest following resistance exercise [p < 0.001, ES = 0.49 (95% CI 0.37, 0.61)], demonstrating the largest, very likely benefits at >24 h [p < 0.001, ES = 1.33 (95% CI 0.80, 1.85)]. Recovery from metabolic exercise (p = 0.01) was significant, although large, very likely benefits emerged only for cycling performance at 24 h post-exercise [p = 0.01, ES = 1.05 (95% CI 0.25, 1.85)]. CONCLUSION: The largest benefits resulting from CG were for strength recovery from 2 to 8 h and >24 h. Considering exercise modality, compression most effectively enhanced recovery from resistance exercise, particularly at time points >24 h. The use of CG would also be recommended to enhance next-day cycling performance. The benefits of CG in relation to applied pressures and participant training status are unclear and limited by the paucity of reported data.
Authors: George P Elias; Matthew C Varley; Victoria L Wyckelsma; Michael J McKenna; Clare L Minahan; Robert J Aughey Journal: Int J Sports Physiol Perform Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 4.010
Authors: Daniel C W Lee; Sinead Sheridan; Ajmol Ali; Damien Sutanto; Stephen H S Wong Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Michael Hettchen; Katharina Glöckler; Simon von Stengel; Andrea Piechele; Helmut Lötzerich; Matthias Kohl; Wolfgang Kemmler Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Shaiane Silva Tomazoni; Caroline Dos Santos Monteiro Machado; Thiago De Marchi; Heliodora Leão Casalechi; Jan Magnus Bjordal; Paulo de Tarso Camillo de Carvalho; Ernesto Cesar Pinto Leal-Junior Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev Date: 2019-11-16 Impact factor: 6.543