Literature DB >> 29742750

A Systematic Review on the Effectiveness of Active Recovery Interventions on Athletic Performance of Professional-, Collegiate-, and Competitive-Level Adult Athletes.

Robert O Ortiz1, Amanda J Sinclair Elder2, Craig L Elder2, J Jay Dawes2.   

Abstract

Ortiz Jr, RO, Sinclair Elder, AJ, Elder, CL, and Dawes, JJ. A systematic review on the effectiveness of active recovery interventions on athletic performance of professional-, collegiate-, and competitive-level adult athletes. J Strength Cond Res 33(8): 2275-2287, 2019-Active recovery (AR) is a popular approach to enhancing athlete recovery from participation through physical action, and it has a perceived benefit in the recovery of athletes' enhancement of postexertional physiological status; however, it is unclear whether these recovery techniques enhance athletic performance. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the effects of AR interventions conducted postexertion on athletic performance among professional, collegiate, and competitive adult athletes. Articles were collected via 4 online databases restricted to publication in English between 1998 and 2014. After the evaluation of overlap among the databases and abstract review, 150 potential eligible studies remained. Twenty-six articles involving 471 subjects remained after full analysis. The primary exclusion factor was absence of AR types of interest or measures of performance. The review resulted in a wide variety of findings indicating the vagueness in AR approach and outcome measures, making it difficult to draw specific conclusions. The review demonstrated that AR interventions lasting 6-10 minutes revealed consistently positive effects on performance. The appropriate intensity level of AR sessions was inconclusive in the literature; however, blood lactate clearance rate as a recovery marker appeared unreliable. The review suggests that there are positive psychological outcomes from AR sessions, a need to determine if AR should be individualized in its application, and weak evidence regarding the efficacy of postexercise AR, particularly relating to performance. Future research is needed for reliable and accurate markers for fatigue, physiological recovery, performance, and markers of intensity and duration for AR interventions.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 29742750     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002589

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Strength Cond Res        ISSN: 1064-8011            Impact factor:   3.775


  4 in total

1.  Similar Recovery of Maximal Cycling Performance after Ischemic Preconditioning, Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation or Active Recovery in Endurance Athletes.

Authors:  Pénélope Paradis-Deschênes; Julien Lapointe; Denis R Joanisse; François Billaut
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 2.988

2.  The Application of Recovery Strategies in Basketball: A Worldwide Survey.

Authors:  Marco Pernigoni; Daniele Conte; Julio Calleja-González; Gennaro Boccia; Marco Romagnoli; Davide Ferioli
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 4.755

3.  Comparison of Different Recovery Strategies After High-Intensity Functional Training: A Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Rafael Martínez-Gómez; Pedro L Valenzuela; Alejandro Lucia; David Barranco-Gil
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 4.566

Review 4.  The Training and Development of Elite Sprint Performance: an Integration of Scientific and Best Practice Literature.

Authors:  Thomas Haugen; Stephen Seiler; Øyvind Sandbakk; Espen Tønnessen
Journal:  Sports Med Open       Date:  2019-11-21
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.