In professional football, the physiological demands of training and match play and the number of competitive matches played per season have increased in recent years.1,2 Football players may play up to 60 competitive matches per season, representing 5 to 6 matches monthly and 3 matches per week during specific congested periods.1,3 Notably, external workloads (eg, high-speed distance, sprint distance, accelerations, and decelerations) and the technical–tactical requirements (eg, number of passes, crosses, and shots on target) of match play have also increased.4,5 Therefore, optimal recovery strategies are fundamental to avoid long-term fatigue and adverse consequences such as underperformance or injury.6,7
This trend has promoted the interest and the need to enhance the knowledge about effective postmatch recovery usage in professional football.6,8–10 Recent research findings have revealed that the top 5 most used postmatch (up to 72 h) recovery methods in Portuguese professional football teams were sleep, nutrition, active recovery, cold water immersion, and massage.10 However, concerning the effectiveness of these methods in recovery, it is still not clear whether they are beneficial and should be recommended to recover the players within 72 hours postmatch (ie, minimal time often considered to intersperse matches). The high controversy observed in studies has made it difficult to obtain clear conclusions and practical guidelines.6,7,11–16 This may be justified by the limited number of randomized control trials performed with professional football players and the high heterogeneity observed within studies due to the divergency in participants’ characteristics (ie, athletes, youth athletes, and active nonathletes), in the protocols of recovery and in the protocols used to induce fatigue and muscle damage.6,11,12,17–21 In addition, a moderate to low methodological quality has been attributed to some of these studies’,7,12 which increases the risk of bias. However, the effectiveness of recovery methods can be determined through a systematic review design approach with clearer inclusion criteria and with graded recommendations attributed based on the studies’ methodological quality. With this information, objective and evidence-based guidelines could be developed to guide recovery procedures in professional football.
Previous reviews related to recovery topics in football6,7,11–16 missed important aspects such as: (1) some of the most popular postmatch recovery methods were not covered, (2) the evaluation of studies’ methodological quality and the level of evidence were not performed, (3) graded recommendation was not assigned, and/or (4) critical methodological issues were not systematically accomplished (which complicates the replication of the study and the comparison of the data reported). Another important aspect that previous systematic reviews have also missed is to consider recovery in different domains (ie, physical, physiological, and perceptive).6,7,11–16
Therefore, a new and comprehensive systematic review that considers the effectiveness and graded recommendations of recovery methods in different domains postmatch (ie, physical, physiological, and perceptive) is warranted. In order to clarify the divergence between theory (ie, the effectiveness of recovery methods) and practice (ie, effective use of recovery methods), the current study aimed to systematically review the literature regarding the effectiveness of the commonly used recovery methods postmatch in professional football (ie, sleep, nutrition, active recovery, cold water immersion, and massage)10 and to provide graded recommendations for their use based on the methodological quality of the studies, in either male or female athletes.
Methods
Design
A systematic review focusing on the effectiveness of recovery methods used postmatch in football was performed following the recommendations of the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) statement22 and based on the minimum criteria established by the Cochrane Back Review Group.23 Before the literature search and selection procedure, a review protocol based on PRISMA-P24 was completed (Supplementary Material S1 [available online]) and registered at the international prospective register of systematic reviews PROSPERO (ID: 272844).
Literature Search and Selection Process
A systematic literature search regarding the effectiveness of recovery methods used postmatch in football was performed within the following databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), SPORTDiscus, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The databases were searched using Boolean operators (ie, AND, OR, and NOT) with the combination of the following medical subject headings and synonyms associated with critical concepts of fatigue, recovery, performance, and well-being: “athlete,” “team-sport,” “recovery,” “sleep,” “nutrition,” “active recovery,” “cold water immersion,” and “massage.” The search strategies adopted were customized to accommodate the characteristics of each database and can be consulted in the Supplementary Material S2 (available online). In addition, a manual search of the reference lists provided in the selected papers was also performed. These searches and the screening procedures were independently performed by 2 of the study authors (S.M.Q. and R.R.) between August 16 and September 6, 2021, with differences resolved by consensus. Additionally, 2 external research experts in fatigue, recovery, and performance were invited to reduce the risk of missing relevant articles. The eligibility of the studies was formulated according to the following PICOS criteria:
- •Population: football or other team sports athletes;
- •Intervention: the most used recovery methods in professional football reported in a previous study (ie, sleep, nutrition, active recovery, cold water immersion, and massage)10 applied up to 72 hours after a match or exercise-induced muscle damage protocol;
- •Comparison: between recovery methods (ie, sleep, nutrition, active recovery, cold water immersion, and massage) and a control group;
- •Outcomes: physical performance (eg, maximal strength), physiological (eg, indirect markers of muscle damage), and perceptual (eg, well-being) outcomes collected up to 72 hours were considered;
- •Study design: randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials.
Studies were included if written in English and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and if: (1) the participants were either adult male and/or female team sports athletes (ie, ≥18 y); (2) the intervention was performed for recovery purposes after a sport competition or related exercise-induced fatigue; and (3) the participants were allocated to at least 2 groups (ie, 1 control and 1 experimental group). Although the published survey which precedes the current systematic review was conducted in the context of professional football,10 a wider athletic population of team sports was included to maximize the availability of studies and the extrapolation of evidence. Studies were excluded if they contained (1) nonteam sport athletes; (2) youth athletes (<18 y old); (3) other recovery methods not listed before; (4) a recovery intervention performed before or during the competition or exercise-induced fatigue; (5) a recovery intervention performed later than 72 hours post exercise-induced fatigue; (6) a recovery intervention performed after exercise conducted in altitude or in the heat; and (7) control groups receiving carbohydrates, in the case of nutrition studies (to avoid analysis bias). Returned titles and abstracts were downloaded into Mendeley Desktop (version 1.19, Glyph & Cog) and screened for eligibility criteria. After the removal of cross-references and duplicates, full articles were then selected based on the criteria set out above. Data were independently extracted by 2 researchers (S.M.Q. and R.R.), where extraction divergences were resolved by consensus; and the included studies’ general characteristics and findings were systematically summarized in text and tables. The paucity of data collected for some recovery methods (ie, sleep, nutrition, and massage) and the methodological diversity observed between studies for all recovery methods limited potential attempts to undertake a meta-analysis.
Methodological Quality and Level of Evidence
The included studies’ methodological quality and level of evidence were classified based on a checklist (ie, Downs and Black instrument),25–27 composed of 27 questions, distributed between 5 subscales (ie, reporting, external validity, internal validity—bias, internal validity—confounding, and power). Two reviewers (S.M.Q. and R.R.) independently examined the studies quality as a percentage score,25 with disagreements resolved by consensus. The level of evidence of randomized and nonrandomized studies was classified as 1 or 2, respectively, with an additional ++, +, and − classifications according to the quality of the study and risk of bias25: ++ for studies with high quality and very low risk of bias (≥75%); + for studies well conducted and with low risk of bias (50%–74%); and − for studies with low quality and high risk of bias (<50%).
Graded Recommendations
By following the guidelines of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN),27 the grades of recommendation for physical performance, physiological, and perceptive outcomes of each recovery method were attributed by 4 sports science researchers qualified with a PhD during a round table. Based on the study’s level of evidence, the population of the supported evidence (ie, from football or other team sports athletes), and the experts personal knowledge and experience, the recommendations either for or against each (sub)topic were categorized as described elsewhere25,27: A—strong recommendation; B—moderate recommendation; C—weak recommendation; and D—insufficient evidence to make a specific recommendation. Note that the type of recommendation for each recovery method (ie, to use or not to use) was provided depending on the studies’ findings.
Results
After the initial search (Figure 1), 3472 articles were identified, 250 duplicates were removed, 3222 titles and abstracts were screened, 3165 articles were excluded, and 8 records were added after the manual search of the reference lists provided in the selected papers. From the eligibility assessment (n = 65), 26 articles were excluded from qualitative synthesis and for methodological quality assessment due to the participants not being teams-sports athletes (n = 13), older than 18 years old (n = 12), and unavailability of 1 full article. The included studies (n = 39) evaluated the recovery postexercise of sleep (n = 3),28–30 nutrition (n = 3),31–33 cold water immersion (n = 21),34–54 active recovery (n = 12),42,43,55–64 and massage (n = 3).51,65,66 The most relevant characteristics and findings are summarized in Supplementary Material S3 (available online).
—Flowchart to illustrate the studies’ identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion.
Citation: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 17, 9; 10.1123/ijspp.2022-0038
Sleep
Two randomized29,30 and 1 nonrandomized controlled trial28 provided data related to sleep methods (Table 1). Two studies were conducted with amateur football players28,30 and one with professional rugby players.29 The studies varied in terms of sleep interventions after the match, namely when reporting the effect of napping in the afternoon,28 sleeping in a high heat transfer capacity mattress during the night,29 and using sleep hygiene strategies.30 The study’s methodological quality score ranged from 50.0% to 78.6%, whereas the levels of evidence ranged from 2+ to 1++ for physical performance and perceptive parameters and from 1+ to 1++ for physiological parameters. Given the findings from the studies reviewed for sleep strategies as a method of recovery in football, a strong recommendation (graded A) against the utilization of this method was assigned for all outcomes.
Graded Recommendations Assigned to the Physical Performance, Physiological, and Perceptive Outcomes, as Well as the Quality Score, Scientific Level of Evidence, and the Main Findings for Articles Investigating the Effect of Sleep in Recovery
| Study | Design | Participants | Quality score, % | Level of evidence | Main findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical performance parameters (n = 3) Graded recommendation: graded A, sleep does not influence recovery of physical performance parameters | |||||
| Hsouna et al28 | NRCT | Amateur football players | 53.6 | 2+ | ↑ anaerobic performance (ie, 5-m shuttle) at ∼20 h |
| Aloulou et al29 | RCT | Elite rugby players | 78.6 | 1++ | = anaerobic performance (ie, vertical jump) at 24 h |
| Fullagar et al30 | RCT | Amateur football players | 50.0 | 1+ | = anaerobic performance (ie, vertical jump) at 10, 20, 34, and 44 h; = aerobic performance (ie, YYIRT2) at 12 and 36 h |
| Physiological parameters (n = 2) Graded recommendation: graded A, sleep does not influence recovery of physiological markers | |||||
| Aloulou et al29 | RCT | Elite rugby players | 78.6 | 1++ | = damage markers (ie, CK) at 24 h |
| Fullagar et al30 | RCT | Amateur football players | 50.0 | 1+ | = damage (ie, CK and urea) and = inflammatory markers (ie, CPR) at 10, 20, 34, and 44 h |
| Perceptive parameters (n = 3) Graded recommendation: graded A, sleep does not influence perceptive recovery | |||||
| Hsouna et al28 | NRCT | Amateur football players | 53.6 | 2+ | ↑ muscle soreness at ∼18 h; ↑ sleepiness at ∼18 h |
| Aloulou et al29 | RCT | Elite rugby players | 78.6 | 1++ | = general fatigue at 24 h |
| Fullagar et al30 | RCT | Amateur football players | 50.0 | 1+ | = perceptive recovery and = stress at 12, 24, 36, and 48 h |
Abbreviations: CK, creatine kinase; CPR, C-reactive protein; n, number of studies; NRCT, nonrandomized control trial; RCT, randomized control trial; YYIRT2, Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test level 2. Note: ↑ significant benefit, ↓ significant harm, and = no significant difference.
Nutrition
Two randomized31,33 and 1 nonrandomized controlled trial32 provided data related to the nutrition method (Table 2). Two studies were performed with professional football athletes31,33 and one with amateur football athletes.32 The nutrition strategy used after the match varied among studies, namely 30 g of whey protein,31 semiskimmed milk,32 and whey protein and high content of carbohydrates.33 The study’s methodological quality scores were 46.4% for physical performance and perceptive indicators and ranged from 35.7% to 56.1% for physiological parameters. Consequently, corresponding levels of evidence were 2− for physical performance and perceptive indicators, and ranged from 1− to 1+ for physiological parameters. Insufficient evidence to make a specific recommendation (graded D) was assigned to nutrition in all outcomes, whereas there is a lack of evidence to determine whether specific nutrition strategies influence recovery in physical, physiological, and perceptive parameters postcompetition.
Graded Recommendations Assigned to the Physical Performance, Physiological, and Perceptive Outcomes, as Well as the Quality Score, Scientific Level of Evidence, and the Main Findings for Articles Investigating the Effect of Nutrition in Recovery
| Study | Design | Participants | Quality score, % | Level of evidence | Main findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical performance parameters (n = 1) Graded recommendation: graded D, nutrition does not influence recovery of physical performance parameters | |||||
| Cockburn et al32 | NRCT | Amateur football players | 46.4 | 2− | = anaerobic performance (ie, vertical jump, 15-m sprint and agility) at 24, 48, and 72 h |
| Physiological parameters (n = 3) Graded recommendation: graded D, nutrition does not influence recovery of physiological markers | |||||
| Mor and Ipekoglu31 | RCT | Amateur football players | 35.7 | 1− | Controversy in damage markers (ie, ↑ AST but = LDH and = CK) at 2 h; = protein metabolism marker (ie, total protein) at 2 h |
| Cockburn et al32 | NRCT | Amateur football players | 46.4 | 2− | = damage markers (ie, CK and CK-Mb) at 24, 48, and 72 h |
| Gunnarsson et al33 | RCT | Elite football players | 56.1 | 1+ | ↓ damage markers (ie, CK) at 24 h; = carbohydrates metabolism markers (ie, muscle glycogen and glycogen resynthesis) at 24 h |
| Perceptive parameters (n = 1) Graded recommendation: graded D, nutrition does not influence perceptive recovery | |||||
| Cockburn et al32 | NRCT | Amateur football players | 46.4 | 2− | = muscle soreness at 24, 48, and 72 h |
Abbreviations: AST, aspartate transaminase; CK, creatine kinase; CK-Mb, creatine kinase myocardial; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; n, number of studies; NRCT, nonrandomized control trial; RCT, randomized control trial. Note: ↑ significant benefit, ↓ significant harm, and = no significant difference.
Cold Water Immersion
Seventeen randomized34–37,39–47,49–52 and 4 nonrandomized controlled trials38,48,53,54 provided data related to cold water immersion (Table 3). The type of participants varied between studies, involving both amateur athletes of basketball (n = 1),34,38 rugby (n = 4),39,44,47,48 football (n = 1),38 and other team sports (n = 4),36,41,53,54 and professional athletes of basketball (n = 1),51 rugby (n = 5),35,37,49,50,52 football (n = 3),40,42,43 futsal (n = 1),45 and mixing team sports (n = 1).46 The type of intervention varied among studies in terms of temperature, duration, and immersion method: (1) water temperature ranged between 5 and 10 °C in 13 studies35–37,39–44,49,50,52,54 and between 11 and 15 °C in 8 studies,34,41,45–48,51,53 (2) the duration of water immersion ranged between 1 and 10 minutes in 12 studies35–40,44,47,49–51,54 and between 11 and 15 minutes in 9 studies,34,41–43,45,46,48,52,53 and (3) the immersion method was continuous in 15 studies34,36–48,53 and intermittent (ie, 2 × 5 min) in 6 studies.35,49–52,54 The study’s methodological quality score ranged from 42.9% to 85.7% for physical performance, 28.5% to 60.7% for physiological, and 42.9% to 67.9% for perceptive parameters, as well as the levels of evidence ranged from 2+ to 1++ (physical), 2− to 1+ (physiological), and 2+ to 1+ (perceptive). Given the findings from the studies reviewed for cold water immersion, a moderate recommendation (graded B) for the utilization of this method was assigned for perceptive outcomes. With a different trend, a moderate recommendation (graded B) against the utilization of cold water immersion was assigned for physical performance and physiological outcomes.
Graded Recommendations Assigned to the Physical Performance, Physiological, and Perceptive Outcomes, as Well as the Quality Score, Scientific Level of Evidence, and the Main Findings for Articles Investigating the Effect of Cold Water Immersion in Recovery
| Study | Design | Participants | Quality score, % | Level of evidence | Main findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical performance parameters (n = 18) Graded recommendation: graded B, cold water immersion does not influence recovery of physical performance parameters | |||||
| Chaiyakul and Chaibal34 | RCT | Amateur basketball players | 53.4 | 1+ | = aerobic performance at 24 h; ↑ anaerobic performance (ie, vertical jump) at 24 h |
| Barber et al35 | RCT | Elite rugby players | 53.4 | 1+ | Likely benefits in anaerobic performance (ie, lower limb strength and vertical jump) at 24 and 48 h |
| Egaña et al36 | RCT | Amateur team sports players | 46.4 | 1− | = cycling performance (ie, mean power) at ∼0 h |
| Nunes et al37 | RCT | Elite rugby players | 50.0 | 1+ | Controversy in anaerobic performance (ie, likely benefits in SJ but trivial effects in CMJ and 30-m sprint) at 24 and 48 h |
| Chow et al39 | RCT | Amateur rugby players | 85.7 | 1++ | = anaerobic performance (ie, lower limb strength, vertical jump and agility) at ∼0 h |
| Bouzid et al40 | RCT | Elite football players | 50.0 | 1+ | Controversy in anaerobic performance (ie, ↓ SJ but = CMJ and = sprint) at ∼0 h; = anaerobic performance (ie, vertical jump, lower limb strength, and sprint) at 24, 48, and 72 h |
| Anderson et al41 | RCT | Amateur team sports players | 53.4 | 1+ | ↓ cycling performance (ie, mean power) at ∼0, 24, 48, and 72 h |
| Garcia et al44 | RCT | Amateur rugby players | 67.9 | 1+ | ↓ anaerobic performance (ie, agility and vertical jump) at ∼0; = anaerobic performance (ie, agility and vertical jump) at 24 h |
| Moreira et al45 | RCT | Elite futsal players | 50.0 | 1+ | ↓ anaerobic performance (ie, vertical jump and repeated sprint) at ∼0; = anaerobic performance (ie, vertical jump and repeated sprint) at 24 h |
| Leeder et al46 | RCT | Elite team sports players | 60.7 | 1+ | = anaerobic performance (ie, lower limb strength and vertical jump) at ∼0, 24, 48, and 72 h |
| Takeda et al47 | RCT | Amateur rugby players | 50.0 | 1+ | = anaerobic (ie, 50-m sprint, vertical jump, and reaction time) and = cycling performance at ∼0 and 24 h. |
| Cook and Beaven48 | NRCT | Amateur rugby players | 57.1 | 2+ | ↑ anaerobic performance (ie, repeated sprints) at 24 h |
| Higgins et al49 | RCT | Elite rugby players | 42.9 | 1− | = flexibility and = anaerobic performance (ie, vertical jump) at ∼0, 24, and 48 h |
| Higgins et al50 | RCT | Elite rugby players | 46.4 | 1− | = anaerobic performance (ie, vertical jump and 40-m sprint) at ∼0, 24, 48, and 72 h |
| Delextrat et al51 | RCT | Elite basketball players | 64.3 | 1+ | Controversy in anaerobic performance (ie, ↑ vertical jump but = repeated sprint) at 24 h |
| Pointon and Duffield52 | RCT | Elite rugby players | 57.1 | 1+ | ↑ anaerobic performance (ie, lower limb strength and voluntary activation) at ∼0 h; = anaerobic performance (ie, lower limb strength and voluntary activation) at 24 h |
| Brophy-Williams et al53 | NRCT | Amateur team sports players | 50.0 | 2+ | ↑ aerobic performance (ie, YYIRT1) at 24 h |
| Ingram et al54 | NRCT | Amateur team sports players | 57.1 | 2+ | Controversy in anaerobic performance (ie, ↑ repeated sprints but = lower limb strength) at 48 h |
| Physiological parameters (n = 13) Graded recommendation: graded B, cold water immersion does not influence recovery of physiological parameters | |||||
| Chaiyakul and Chaibal34 | RCT | Amateur basketball players | 53.4 | 1+ | = hemodynamic markers (ie, HR and blood pressure) at 24 h |
| Barber et al35 | RCT | Elite rugby players | 53.4 | 1+ | Likely benefits in damage markers (ie, CK) at 24 and 48 h |
| Nunes et al37 | RCT | Elite rugby players | 50.0 | 1+ | Controversy in inflammatory markers (ie, likely benefits in TNF-α but trivial effect in Il-6) at 24, 48, and 72 h |
| Çakir et al38 | NRCT | Amateur football players | 39.3 | 2− | = damage markers (ie, CK-Mb and cTnT) at 2 and 24 h |
| Bouzid et al40 | RCT | Elite football players | 50.0 | 1+ | ↑ damage marker (ie, CK) at post and 24 h; = damage marker (ie, CK) at 48 and 72 h |
| Anderson et al41 | RCT | Amateur team sports players | 53.4 | 1+ | = damage (ie, CK), = inflammatory (ie, CPR), and = carbohydrates metabolism marker (ie, lactate) at ∼0, 24, 48, and 72 h |
| Abedi et al42 | RCT | Elite football players | 28.6 | 1− | = damage (ie, CK) and = inflammatory marker (ie, CPR) at ∼0 h; ↑ damage (ie, CK) and ↑ inflammatory marker (ie, CPR) at 24 and 48 h |
| Arabmomeni and Mostafavi43 | RCT | Elite football players | 32.1 | 1− | ↑ damage (ie, CK) and ↑ inflammatory marker (ie, CPR) at 24 and 48 h |
| Leeder et al46 | RCT | Elite team sports players | 60.7 | 1+ | = damage (ie, CK) and = inflammatory marker (ie, CPR and Il-6) at ∼0, 24, 48, and 72 h |
| Takeda et al47 | RCT | Amateur rugby players | 50.0 | 1+ | = damage (ie, AST, LDH creatinine, and CK) and = carbohydrates metabolism marker (ie, lactate) at ∼0 and 24 h |
| Pointon and Duffield52 | RCT | Elite rugby players | 57.1 | 1+ | = damage (ie, AST and CK) and = inflammatory markers (ie, CPR) at ∼0, 2, and 24 h |
| Brophy-Williams et al53 | NRCT | Amateur team sports players | 50.0 | 2+ | ↑ inflammatory markers (ie, CPR) at 24 h; = carbohydrates metabolism marker (ie, lactate) at 24 h; = hemodynamic markers (ie, HR) at 24 h |
| Ingram et al54 | NRCT | Amateur team sports players | 57.1 | 2+ | = damage (ie, CK) and = inflammatory markers (ie, CPR) at ∼0, 24, and 48 h |
| Perceptive parameters (n = 15) Graded recommendation: graded B, cold water immersion may positively influence the perceptive recovery | |||||
| Chaiyakul and Chaibal34 | RCT | Amateur basketball players | 53.4 | 1+ | ↑ muscle soreness at 24 h |
| Barber et al35 | RCT | Elite rugby players | 53.4 | 1+ | Likely benefits in muscle soreness at 24 and 48 h |
| Nunes et al37 | RCT | Elite rugby players | 50.0 | 1+ | Trivial effect in muscle soreness and general fatigue at 24, 48, and 72 h |
| Bouzid et al40 | RCT | Elite football players | 50.0 | 1+ | ↑ muscle soreness at ∼0, 24, and 48 h; = muscle soreness at 72 h |
| Anderson et al41 | RCT | Amateur team sports players | 53.4 | 1+ | = muscle soreness at ∼0, 24, 48, and 72 h |
| Garcia et al44 | RCT | Amateur rugby players | 67.9 | 1+ | = perceptive recovery at ∼0; ↑ perceptive recovery at 12 h |
| Moreira et al45 | RCT | Elite futsal players | 50.0 | 1+ | = muscle soreness at ∼0 and 24 h |
| Leeder et al46 | RCT | Elite team sports players | 60.7 | 1+ | = muscle soreness at ∼0, 24, 48, and 72 h |
| Takeda et al47 | RCT | Amateur rugby players | 50.0 | 1+ | ↑ general fatigue at ∼0; = general fatigue at 24 h |
| Cook and Beaven48 | NRCT | Amateur rugby players | 57.1 | 2+ | ↑ perceptive recovery at 24 h |
| Higgins et al49 | RCT | Elite rugby players | 42.9 | 1− | = muscle soreness at ∼0, 24, and 48 h |
| Higgins et al50 | RCT | Elite rugby players | 46.4 | 1− | = muscle soreness at ∼0, 24, 48, and 72 h |
| Delextrat et al51 | RCT | Elite basketball players | 64.3 | 1+ | ↑ general fatigue and ↑ muscle soreness at ∼0 and 24 h |
| Pointon and Duffield52 | RCT | Elite rugby players | 57.1 | 1+ | ↑ muscle soreness at 2 h; = muscle soreness at ∼0 and 24 h |
| Ingram et al54 | NRCT | Amateur team sports players | 57.1 | 2+ | = muscle soreness at ∼0 h; ↑ muscle soreness at 24 and 48 h |
Abbreviations: AST, aspartate transaminase; CK, creatine kinase; CK-Mb, creatine kinase myocardial; CMJ, countermovement jump; CPR, Creactive protein; cTnT, cardiac troponin T; HR, heart rate; Il-6, interleukin-6; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; n, number of studies; NRCT, nonrandomized control trial; RCT, randomized control trial; SJ, squat jump; TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor alpha; YYIRT1, Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test level 1. Note: ↑ significant benefit, ↓ significant harm, and = no significant difference.
Active Recovery
Ten randomized42,43,55–61,64 and 2 nonrandomized controlled trials62,63 provided data related to active recovery (Table 4). These studies were performed with both amateur athletes of handball (n = 1), rugby (n = 1)64, futsal (n = 1),61 Australian rules football (n = 1),63,64 football (n = 1),55,56 and mixing team sports (n = 1)56 and professional athletes of rugby (n = 1)62 and football (n = 5).42,43,57,59,60 The type of active recovery varied among studies by performing in the water (n = 3)61,63,64 or in the land, using cycling (n = 3),55,56,62 cycling and strength training (n = 2),59,60 walking or running (n = 2),58,61 or using walking or running and stretching exercises (n = 3).42,43,57 The study’s methodological quality score ranged from 42.9% to 71.4% for physical performance, 32.1% to 64.3% for physiological, and 42.9 to 64.3 for perceptive parameters. Consequently, the levels of evidence ranged from 2+ to 1+ (physical performance), 2− to 1+ (physiological), and 2+ to 1+ (perceptive). Given the findings from the studies reviewed for active recovery strategies as a method of recovery in football, a moderate recommendation (graded B) against the utilization of this method was assigned for all outcomes.
Graded Recommendations Assigned to the Physical Performance, Physiological, and Perceptive Outcomes, as Well as the Quality Score, Scientific Level of Evidence, and the Main Findings for Articles Investigating the Effect of Active Recovery in Recovery
| Study | Design | Participants | Quality score, % | Level of evidence | Main findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical performance parameters (n = 5) Graded recommendation: graded B, active recovery does not influence recovery of physical performance parameters | |||||
| Abaïdia et al55 | RCT | Amateur basketball players | 42.9 | 1− | Trivial effect in anaerobic performance (ie, vertical jump and lower limb strength) at 48 and 72 h; likely harm in anaerobic performance at 20 h (ie, lower limb strength) |
| Rey et al57 | RCT | Amateur football players | 71.4 | 1+ | Controversy in anaerobic performance (ie, ↑ vertical jump but = 20-m sprint and = agility at 24 h); = flexibility at 24 h |
| Andersson et al60 | RCT | Amateur team sports players | 64.3 | 1+ | = anaerobic performance (ie, sprint, vertical jump, and lower limb strength) at ∼0, 5, 21, 27, 45, 51, 69, and 74 h |
| Tessitore et al61 | RCT | Elite football players | 60.7 | 1+ | = anaerobic performance (ie, vertical jump and 10-m sprint) at ∼5 and ∼21 h |
| Dawson et al63 | NRCT | Amateur rugby players | 53.4 | 2+ | ↑ anaerobic performance (ie, vertical jump) at 15 h but = anaerobic performance (ie, vertical jump) at 48 h; = cycling performance and = flexibility at 15 and 48 h |
| Physiological parameters (n = 10) Graded recommendation: graded B, active recovery does not influence recovery of physiological parameters | |||||
| Abaïdia et al55 | RCT | Amateur basketball players | 42.9 | 1− | Trivial effect in damage marker (ie, CK) at 20, 48, and 72 h |
| Özsu et al56 | RCT | Amateur rugby players | 50.0 | 1+ | ↑ carbohydrates metabolism marker (ie, lactate) at ∼0 h; = hemodynamic markers (ie, HR) at ∼0 h |
| Abedi et al42 | RCT | Elite football players | 28.6 | 1− | = damage (ie, CK) and = inflammatory marker (ie, CPR) at ∼0 and 24 h; = damage (ie, CK) and ↑ inflammatory marker (ie, CPR) at 48 h |
| Arabmomeni and Mostafavi43 | RCT | Elite football players | 32.1 | 1− | = damage (ie, CK) and = inflammatory marker (ie, CPR) at 24 and 48 h |
| Arazi et al30 | RCT | Amateur handball players | 32.1 | 1− | ↑ carbohydrates metabolism marker (ie, lactate) at ∼0 h; ↓ hemodynamic markers (ie, HR and blood pressure) at ∼0 h |
| Andersson et al59 | RCT | Elite football players | 60.7 | 1+ | = oxidative stress and = antioxidants markers at ∼0, 21, 45, 69, and 74 h |
| Andersson et al60 | RCT | Amateur team sports players | 64.3 | 1+ | = damage markers (ie, CK, urea, and uric acid) at ∼0, 5, 21, 27, 45, 51, 69, and 74 h |
| Tessitore et al61 | RCT | Elite football players | 60.7 | 1+ | = stress (ie, cortisol and catecholamines) and = carbohydrates metabolism marker (ie, lactate) at ∼20 h |
| Gill et al62 | NRCT | Elite football players | 46.4 | 2− | = damage markers (ie, CK) at ∼0 h; ↑ damage markers (ie, CK) at 36 and 84 h |
| Suzuki et al64 | NRCT | Amateur team sports players | 53.4 | 1+ | = damage (ie, CK, LDH, GPT, and GOT) and inflammatory markers (ie, leukocyte and neutrophil) at 24 and 48 h |
| Perceptive parameters (n = 6) Graded recommendation: graded B, active recovery does not influence perceptive recovery | |||||
| Abaïdia et al55 | RCT | Amateur basketball players | 42.9 | 1− | Likely harm effect on perceptive recovery at 20, 48, and 72 h |
| Özsu et al56 | RCT | Amateur rugby players | 50.0 | 1+ | ↑ perceptive recovery at ∼0 h |
| Andersson et al60 | RCT | Amateur team sports players | 64.3 | 1+ | = muscle soreness at ∼0, 5, 21, 27, 45, 51, 69, and 74 h |
| Tessitore et al61 | RCT | Elite football players | 60.7 | 1+ | = muscle soreness, = stress, = perceptive recovery and = amount of sleep at ∼20 h |
| Dawson et al63 | NRCT | Amateur rugby players | 53.4 | 2+ | = muscle soreness at 15 and 48 h |
| Suzuki et al64 | NRCT | Amateur team sports players | 53.4 | 1+ | = mood (ie, POMS) at 24 and 48 h |
Abbreviations: CK, creatine kinase; CPR, Creactive protein; GOT, glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase; GPT, glutamic pyruvic transaminase; HR, heart rate; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; POMS, profile of mood states; n, number of studies; NRCT, nonrandomized control trial; RCT, randomized control trial. Note: ↑ significant benefit, ↓ significant harm, and = no significant difference.
Massage
Three randomized controlled trials51,65,66 were included (Table 5), where 2 studies were performed with professional basketball players51,65 and one with amateur team sports players.66 In all studies, massages were performed up to 30 minutes after a match or exercise with a similar approach. The study’s methodological quality scores ranged from 46.4% to 64.3% for physical and perceptive parameters, with the levels of evidence ranging from 1− to 1+ in both outcomes. None of these studies assessed physiological parameters. Given the findings from the studies reviewed for massage strategies, a moderate recommendation (graded B) for the utilization of this method was assigned for perceptive outcomes. With a different tendency, a moderate recommendation (graded B) against the utilization of massage was assigned for physical performance outcomes, and nonexistent evidence was observed for physiological outcomes.
Graded Recommendations Assigned to the Physical Performance, Physiological, and Perceptive Outcomes, as Well as the Quality Score, Scientific Level of Evidence, and the Main Findings for Articles Investigating the Effect of Massage in Recovery
| Study | Design | Participants | Quality score, % | Level of evidence | Main findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical performance parameters (n = 3) Graded recommendation: graded B, massage does not influence recovery of physical performance parameters | |||||
| Delextrat et al65 | RCT | Elite basketball players | 46.4 | 1− | = anaerobic performance (ie, vertical jump and repeated sprints) at 24 h |
| Delextrat et al51 | RCT | Elite basketball players | 64.3 | 1+ | = anaerobic performance (ie, vertical jump and repeated sprints) at 24 h |
| Mancinelli et al66 | RCT | Amateur team sports players | 64.3 | 1+ | ↑ anaerobic performance (ie, vertical jump) at ∼0 h; = aerobic performance and = flexibility at ∼0 h |
| Physiological parameters (n = 0) Graded recommendation: none | |||||
| Perceptive parameters (n = 3) Graded recommendation: graded B, massage may positively influence the perceptive recovery | |||||
| Delextrat et al65 | RCT | Elite basketball players | 46.4 | 1− | ↑ muscle soreness and ↑ general fatigue at ∼0 and 24 h |
| Delextrat et al51 | RCT | Elite basketball players | 64.3 | 1+ | ↑ muscle soreness and ↑ general fatigue at ∼0 and 24 h |
| Mancinelli et al66 | RCT | Amateur team sports players | 64.3 | 1+ | ↑ muscle soreness at ∼0 h |
Abbreviation: n, number of studies; NRCT, nonrandomized control trial; RCT, randomized control trial. Note: ↑ significant benefit, ↓ significant harm, and = no significant difference.
Discussion
Considering the importance of ensuring an effective recovery after football matches,6–9 the present study aimed to systematically review whether the recovery methods most commonly used in professional football (ie, sleep, nutrition, active recovery, cold water immersion, and massage)10 are supported by scientific evidence and to provide graded recommendations on the respective use and effectiveness. Despite that the level of evidence and the graded recommendations were moderate to strong in most of the recovery methods, it was generally concluded that cold water immersion and massage can provide benefits to recover perceptive parameters. However, cold water immersion and massage did not show benefits in recovery of other parameters (i.e., physical performance and physiological outcomes). On the other hand, due to the limited number of studies observed for nutrition, sleep, and massage, there is a lack of evidence to recommend or avoid their use to recover physical and physiological outcomes. These findings encourage a rethinking of the common and current recovery practices postmatch, as well as the need to perform further studies with appropriate experimental designs (ie, randomized control trials), higher methodological quality, and lower risk of bias.
Sleep
Although sleep has been referred to as one of the most important11,14,67 and frequent8,9 postmatch recovery methods, and that sleep quality and quantity are normally poor in professional team sports athletes,11,68 we found that sleep strategies appear to have negligible effectiveness in potentiating recovery at the physical, physiological, and perceptual levels. It should be noted that among the 3 studies considered, only one promoted sleep extension,28 which has been reported as the most effective and advantageous sleep strategy for the recovery process67; however, sleep extension has been promoted through an educational session. Also, previous studies suggesting the importance of sleep for recovery effectiveness have focused on how sleep deprivation affected recovery,11,67,69 rather than how additional sleep strategies might enhance recovery. This suggests that sleep strategies should not be considered as a way to recover in the short term over the impact of match (or to reduce recovery time), but rather in the perspective of safeguarding normal sleep practices of athletes and recovery in the long term. For instance, Bonnar et al67 noted that sleeping strategies promote benefits in recovery only after long-term interventions (ie, some weeks of implementation). However, it is important to note that sleep deprivation has been reported to affect cognitive performance, decision making, and motor control behavior,14,67,69 and these aspects, which are very important in the context of football, have been little studied in terms of recovery. Currently, cognitive-related outcomes may be more favored by good sleep practices than other physical and physiological outcomes. Therefore, despite the strong recommendation (graded A) supporting that sleep strategies do not influence recovery (which is in line with previous studies),12,67 it should be noted that this does not mean that regular sleep strategies should be disregarded. Thus, we recognize the need of future controlled trials examining the impact of long-term sleep strategies on recovery of team sports athletes, in particular in variables likely to be disturbed by sleep.
Nutrition
Contrary to the considerable importance and extensive usage in professional football,8–10 the effectiveness of nutrition strategies used postmatch needs to be further examined. The findings are contrary to previous studies supporting that various nutritional approaches (ie, fluids ingestion, carbohydrates and protein, tart cherry, omega-3, vitamin D, and creatine monohydrate supplementation) are beneficial to recover physical performance (eg, maximal strength), physiological (eg, rehydration, muscle glycogen refueling, and repair), and perceptual (eg, muscle soreness) parameters.6,13,16,70,71 However, most of the conclusions of these studies derived from narrative reviews and consensus statements.6,13,70,71 Also, the recommendations are mostly based on the effects induced by harmful exercise and the presumed postexercise nutritional positive effects, rather than on well-designed controlled trials.6,13,70 Some of the studies have conducted long-term interventions rather than short-term interventions postexercise up to 72 hours,6,16 and, important to note, none of the studies included have examined team sports athletes after competitive matches. It is also important to highlight the limitations of the studies included in the current review. The low methodological quality (ie, 35.7%–56.1%) and the research designs of the studies led to grade nutritional strategies to the lowest level of recommendation (graded D; insufficient evidence to make a specific recommendation). Thus, to date, there is no evidence that isolated nutritional strategies applied postmatch produce a beneficial effect on recovery up to 72 hours,31–33 which opposes the recommendation of Abaïdia and Dupont.12 Additionally, the nutritional strategies chosen (ie, whey protein, milk, carbohydrates, and protein) in the included studies31–33 may not effectively favor the recovery process in the short term. Therefore, future studies should consider robust experimental designs with high methodological quality (ie, randomized control trials) aiming to test and recommend with greater confidence the use of nutrition strategies in the recovery of football players.
Cold Water Immersion
Although cold water immersion has been widely used for recovery purposes,10 this method proved to be effective only to recover at a perceptual level, which is in agreement with most studies on this topic.19,21,72–74 On the contrary, cold water immersion was not effective in recovering physical performance and physiological parameters, which is contrary to the conclusions of some studies21,72,75 but not others.19,76,77 The different findings between studies may be explained by the high bias and the heterogeneity of studies reported in previous systematic reviews.19,21,73,75,76 For instance, the characteristics of the participants (eg, age, sex, physique trait) and the type of intervention (eg, duration, water temperature) may influence the magnitude of recovery due to the different effects in blood flow and tissue temperature.18,78 Thus, some new approaches focusing on the individualization of cold water immersion to enhance the benefits in recovery were recently proposed.18,78
According to previous reports,78 cold water immersion may induce deleterious effects in anaerobic performance at 24 hours postexercise.41,44,45 This negative effect may be explained by the reduction in the neural drive and enzymatic activity,44,78 although the relevance of this phenomenon may have limited applicability in professional football. In addition, the long-term use of cold water immersion may be potentially harmful to skeletal muscle mass development, in particular when using more aggressive protocols with lower temperatures and higher duration.78,79 Although there are few studies concerning the long-term implications of using cold water immersion for recovery, none has been conducted in team sports, and it might be wise to use cold water immersion as per the recommendations (ie, water temperature at 11–15 °C and duration of 11–15 min),73,75 and periodically in strictly necessary moments (eg, congested fixtures or after highly harmful exercise). Although the practical suggestions noted to avoid potential harmful effects, the overall high methodological quality of the studies and level of evidence reported reinforce the beneficial use of cold water immersion after football matches, in particular aiming to accelerate perceptive recovery, which is in line with Abaïdia and Dupont12 and Cullen et al.15
Active Recovery
In team sports, active recovery may be performed immediately postexercise (ie, as a cooldown)8,68 or in later periods up to 72 hours.8–10 Particularly in football, active recovery has been mostly used between 24 and 72 hours postmatch.10 This recovery strategy has been reported to be well accepted by the practitioners in charge and positively assumed by athletes as effective for recovery.6,8–10 However, the effects of exercise in the recovery of physical, physiological, and perceptive outcomes have been reported as not significant,6,68 which is in agreement with the findings of the present study. It is important to note, however, that postmatch active recovery practices usually incorporate socialization actions and promotion of squad motivation among players (usually valued in postgame “psychological recovery”) and may allow coach interventions on technical–tactical aspects. As such, although a moderate recommendation against the use of active recovery (ie, grade B) is given, such strategies might not be disregarded. Future research on active recovery should seek to find out whether such practices effectively produce psychosocial benefits and whether self-selected active recovery strategies may promote better recovery at the individual level.
Massage
Although with considerably less degree of usage for football postmatch recovery compared with the aforementioned methods,10 previous research has reported controversial findings for massage in recovery of physical and physiological outcomes, with some systematic reviews showing benefits21,80 and others not.6,12,20,81,82 It has been suggested that this controversy may be explained by the large variety of massage techniques used among the analyzed studies.6 In the present work, the 3 included studies used similar techniques and protocols and showed different findings on the use of massage for physical performance recovery; 1 study 66 reported benefits and 2 studies 51,65 reported no advantages. On the other hand, all studies showed positive effects of massage for perceptive recovery,51,65,66 in accordance with previous studies.6,12,20,21,74,80,82 Based on the studies’ level of evidence, a moderate recommendation (grade B) was given to use massage postmatch in football, aiming to recover perceptual outcomes but not physical performance, which is in line with Abaïdia and Dupont12. Further research is needed to examine the potential physiological effects of massage in recovery.
Perspectives
Previous studies have rarely differentiated recovery outcomes and have interpreted recovery as a whole. This fact can create difficulties in classifying the effectiveness of a given method, as the method may be relevant in a specific dimension. The present study differentiated recovery in 3 dimensions (ie physical, physiological, and perceptual performance), as they are areas of interest with a potentially greater number of studies. In the future, other dimensions also relevant in the recovery process (eg, psychosocial) may be explored. Another perspective concerns the need to perform further investigation with better experimental designs (ie, randomized control trials), higher methodological quality (to maximize the level of evidence), and lower risk of bias, particularly for sleep, nutrition, and massage.
Finally, alternative approaches may also be sought in the recovery of physical and physiological performance parameters, since none of the methods investigated in the present had sufficient evidence to be effective. In this sense, we propose 3 paths that should drive the future of research in football postmatch recovery: (1) different exercise training approaches practiced prior to the harmful exercise could be advantageous in the recovery process, (2) combined use of recovery methods, and (3) athletes’ individualization of recovery methods.
Practical Applications
Despite the limited number of studies in some methods (ie, sleep, nutrition, and massage), grades of recommendation based on methodological quality of studies included and corresponding levels of evidence were assigned to recovery of physical, physiological, and perceptive outcomes after the use of commonly used recovery methods in professional football:
- •Sleep: strong recommendation against its occasional use due to its ineffectiveness to improve physical performance, physiological, and perceptive recovery;
- •Nutrition: insufficient evidence to make a specific recommendation and to reject its occasional use due to its ineffectiveness to improve physical performance, physiological, and perceptive recovery;
- •Cold water immersion: moderate recommendation to accept its use for perceptive recovery;
- •Active recovery: moderate recommendation against its use due to its ineffectiveness to improve physical performance, physiological, and perceptive recovery;
- •Massage: moderate recommendation to accept its use for perceptive recovery.
Conclusions
This study sought to gather the current evidence about the effectiveness of postmatch recovery methods in football and to provide graded recommendations for the use of methods to recover physical performance, physiological, and perceptive outcomes either in male or female athletes. Cold water immersion and massage showed effectiveness for perceptive recovery and, therefore, can be recommended to be used after football matches. Nevertheless, the application of cold water immersion is recommended in strictly necessary moments (eg, congested fixtures or after highly intense training sessions). In contrast, no recovery benefits were identified postmatch for active recovery. Additionally, the lack of randomized controlled trials, primarily attributed to the difficulty of implementing such studies in elite team sport environments, has led to a lack of evidence regarding the benefit of sleep and nutrition strategies identified in this systematic review. Overall, there is a need to increase the number of studies with higher methodological quality and level of evidence to support the use of recovery strategies in football.
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions: Conceptualization: Querido, Radaelli, Brito, Vaz, Freitas. Acquisition of data: Querido, Radaelli. Analysis and interpretation of data: Querido, Radaelli, Brito, Vaz, Freitas. Original drafting: Querido. Review and editing: Querido, Radaelli, Brito, Vaz, Freitas. Supervision: Brito, Freitas.
References
- 1.↑
Dupont G, Nedelec M, McCall A, McCormack D, Berthoin S, Wisløff U. Effect of 2 soccer matches in a week on physical performance and injury rate. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(9):1752–1758. PubMed ID: 20400751 doi:10.1177/0363546510361236
- 2.↑
Silva JR, Rumpf MC, Hertzog M, et al. Acute and residual soccer match-related fatigue: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018;48(3):539–583. PubMed ID: 29098658 doi:10.1007/s40279-017-0798-8
- 3.↑
Anderson L, Orme P, Di Michele R, et al. Quantification of training load during one-, two- and three-game week schedules in professional soccer players from the English premier league: implications for carbohydrate periodisation. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(13):1250–1259. PubMed ID: 26536538 doi:10.1080/02640414.2015.1106574
- 4.↑
Barnes C, Archer DT, Hogg B, Bush M, Bradley PS. The evolution of physical and technical performance parameters in the English premier league. Int J Sports Med. 2014;35(13):1095–1100. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1375695
- 5.↑
Pons E, Ponce-Bordón JC, Díaz-García J, et al. A longitudinal exploration of match running performance during a football match in the Spanish La Liga: a four-season study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(3):1133. PubMed ID: 33525322 doi:10.3390/ijerph18031133
- 6.↑
Nédélec M, McCall A, Carling C, Legall F, Berthoin S, Dupont G. Recovery in soccer: part II—recovery strategies. Sports Med. 2013;43(1):9–22. PubMed ID: 23315753 doi:10.1007/s40279-012-0002-0
- 7.↑
Altarriba-Bartes A, Peña J, Vicens-Bordas J, Milà-Villaroel R, Calleja-González J. Post-competition recovery strategies in elite male soccer players. Effects on performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0240135. PubMed ID: 33007044 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240135
- 8.↑
Altarriba-Bartes A, Peña J, Vicens-Bordas J, Casals M, Peirau X, Calleja-González J. The use of recovery strategies by Spanish first division soccer teams: a cross-sectional survey. Phys Sportsmed. 2021;49(3):297–307. doi:10.1080/00913847.2020.1819150
- 9.↑
Field A, Harper LD, Chrismas BCR, et al. The use of recovery strategies in professional soccer: a worldwide survey. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2021;16(12):1804–1815. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2020-0799
- 10.↑
Querido S, Brito J, Figueiredo P, Carnide F, Vaz J, Freitas S. Post-match recovery practices carried out in professional football: a survey of 56 Portuguese professional football teams. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17(5):748–754. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2021-0343
- 11.↑
Nédélec M, Halson S, Delecroix B, Abaidia AE, Ahmaidi S, Dupont G. Sleep hygiene and recovery strategies in elite soccer players. Sports Med. 2015;45(11):1547–1559. PubMed ID: 26275673 doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0377-9
- 12.↑
Abaïdia AE, Dupont G. Recovery strategies for football players. Swiss Sport Exerc Med. 2018;66:28–36.
- 13.↑
Fernandes HS. Carbohydrate consumption and periodization strategies applied to elite soccer players. Curr Nutr Rep. 2020;9(4):414–419. PubMed ID: 33098050 doi:10.1007/s13668-020-00338-w
- 14.↑
Vitale KC, Owens R, Hopkins SR, Malhotra A. Sleep hygiene for optimizing recovery in athletes: review and recommendations. Int J Sports Med. 2019;40(8):535–543. doi:10.1055/a-0905-3103
- 15.↑
Cullen MFL, Casazza GA, Davis BA. Passive recovery strategies after exercise: a narrative literature review of the current evidence. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2021;20(7):351–358. PubMed ID: 34234090 doi:10.1249/JSR.0000000000000859
- 16.↑
Owens DJ, Twist C, Cobley JN, Howatson G, Close GL. Exercise-induced muscle damage: what is it, what causes it and what are the nutritional solutions? Eur J Sport Sci. 2019;19(1):71–85. doi:10.1080/17461391.2018.1505957
- 17.↑
Tavares F, Smith TB, Driller M. Fatigue and recovery in rugby: a review. Sports Med. 2017;47(8):1515–1530. doi:10.1007/s40279-017-0679-1
- 18.↑
Stephens JM, Halson S, Miller J, Slater GJ, Askew CD. Cold-water immersion for athletic recovery: one size does not fit all. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(1):2–9. PubMed ID: 27294485 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2016-0095
- 19.↑
Leeder J, Gissane C, Van Someren K, Gregson W, Howatson G. Cold water immersion and recovery from strenuous exercise: a meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(4):233–240. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2011-090061
- 20.↑
Torres R, Ribeiro F, Alberto Duarte J, Cabri JMH. Evidence of the physiotherapeutic interventions used currently after exercise-induced muscle damage: systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Ther Sport. 2012;13(2):101–114. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2011.07.005
- 21.↑
Dupuy O, Douzi W, Theurot D, Bosquet L, Dugué B. An evidence-based approach for choosing post-exercise recovery techniques to reduce markers of muscle damage, soreness, fatigue, and inflammation: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Front Physiol. 2018;9:403. PubMed ID: 29755363 doi:10.3389/fphys.2018.00403
- 22.↑
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906. PubMed ID: 33789826 doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906
- 23.↑
Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M, Editorial Board, Cochrane Back Review Group. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane back review group. Spine. 2009;34(18):1929–1941. PubMed ID: 19680101 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b1c99f
- 24.↑
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647. PubMed ID: 25555855 doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647
- 25.↑
McCall A, Carling C, Davison M, et al. Injury risk factors, screening tests and preventative strategies: a systematic review of the evidence that underpins the perceptions and practices of 44 football (soccer) teams from various premier leagues. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(9):583–589. PubMed ID: 25576530 doi:10.1136/bjsports-2014-094104
- 26.
Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(6):377–384. PubMed ID: 9764259 doi:10.1136/jech.52.6.377
- 27.↑
Harbour R, Miller J. A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ. 2001;323(7308):334–336. PubMed ID: 11498496 doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7308.334
- 28.↑
Hsouna H, Boukhris O, Hill DW, et al. A daytime 40-min nap opportunity after a simulated late evening soccer match reduces the perception of fatigue and improves 5-m shuttle run performance. Res Sports Med. Published online May 17, 2021. PubMed ID: 33998848 doi:10.1080/15438627.2021.1917400
- 29.↑
Aloulou A, Leduc C, Duforez F, et al. Effect of an innovative mattress and cryotherapy on sleep after an elite rugby match. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020;52(12):2655–2662. PubMed ID: 32472928 doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000002403
- 30.↑
Fullagar H, Skorski S, Duffield R, Meyer T. The effect of an acute sleep hygiene strategy following a late-night soccer match on recovery of players. Chronobiol Int. 2016;33(5):490–505. PubMed ID: 27031035 doi:10.3109/07420528.2016.1149190
- 31.↑
Mor A, Ipekoglu G. The effect of whey protein supplementation on exercise-induced muscle damage. Int J Med Sci Public Health. 2018;7(7):132–137.
- 32.↑
Cockburn E, Bell PG, Stevenson E. Effect of milk on team sport performance after exercise-induced muscle damage. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(8):1585–1592. PubMed ID: 23470297 doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31828b7dd0
- 33.↑
Gunnarsson TP, Bendiksen M, Bischoff R, et al. Effect of whey protein- and carbohydrate-enriched diet on glycogen resynthesis during the first 48 h after a soccer game. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(4):508–515. PubMed ID: 22107250 doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01418.x
- 34.↑
Chaiyakul S, Chaibal S. Effects of delayed cold water immersion after high-intensity intermittent exercise on subsequent exercise performance in basketball players. Sport Mont. 2021;19(3):15–20. doi:10.26773/smj.211003
- 35.↑
Barber S, Pattison J, Brown F, Hill J. Efficacy of repeated cold water immersion on recovery after a simulated rugby union protocol. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(12):3523–3529. PubMed ID: 28902112 doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002239
- 36.↑
Egaña M, Jordan L, Moriarty T. A 2.5 min cold water immersion improves prolonged intermittent sprint performance. J Sci Med Sport. 2019;22(12):1349–1354. PubMed ID: 31327650 doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2019.07.002
- 37.↑
Nunes RFH, Duffield R, Nakamura FY, et al. Recovery following rugby union matches: effects of cold water immersion on markers of fatigue and damage. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2019;44(5):546–556. PubMed ID: 30321486 doi:10.1139/apnm-2018-0542
- 38.↑
Çakir E, Senel O, Arslanoglu E. The effect of cold water immersion on cardiac troponin T and myoglobin levels. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2019;40(1):22–28. PubMed ID: 31184819
- 39.↑
Chow GCC, Chung JWY, Fong SSM. Differential effects of post-exercise ice water immersion and room temperature water immersion on muscular performance, vertical jump, and agility in amateur rugby players: a randomized controlled trial. Sci Sports. 2018;33(6):e271–e279. doi:10.1016/j.scispo.2018.04.005
- 40.↑
Bouzid MA, Ghattassi K, Daab W, et al. Faster physical performance recovery with cold water immersion is not related to lower muscle damage level in professional soccer players. J Therm Biol. 2018;78:184–191. PubMed ID: 30509634 doi:10.1016/j.jtherbio.2018.10.001
- 41.↑
Anderson D, Nunn J, Tyler CJ. Effect of cold (14° C) vs. ice (5° C) water immersion on recovery from intermittent running exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(3):764–771. PubMed ID: 29189587 doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002314
- 42.↑
Abedi B, Darani MM, Fatolahi H. The effect of active and passive recovery on creatine kinase and C-reactive protein after an exercise session in football players. Int Arch Health Sci. 2018;5(1):1–5. doi:10.4103/iahs.iahs_31_17
- 43.↑
Arabmomeni A, Mostafavi M. Variation of creatine-kinase and C-reactive protein evels in a variety of recovery following exhaustive exercise in elite soccer players. Pars J Med Sci. 2017;15:24–31.
- 44.↑
Garcia CA, da Mota GR, Marocolo M. Cold water immersion is acutely detrimental but increases performance post-12 h in rugby players. Int J Sports Med. 2016;37(8):619–624. doi:10.1055/s-0035-1565200
- 45.↑
Moreira A, Costa EC, Coutts AJ, Nakamura FY, da Silva DA, Aoki MS. Cold water immersion did not accelerate recovery after a futsal match. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2015;21(1):40–43. doi:10.1590/1517-86922015210101578
- 46.↑
Leeder JDC, van Someren KA, Bell PG, et al. Effects of seated and standing cold water immersion on recovery from repeated sprinting. J Sports Sci. 2015;33(15):1544–1552. PubMed ID: 25573221 doi:10.1080/02640414.2014.996914
- 47.↑
Takeda M, Sato T, Hasegawa T, et al. The effects of cold water immersion after rugby training on muscle power and biochemical markers. J Sports Sci Med. 2014;13(3):616–623. PubMed ID: 25177190
- 48.↑
Cook CJ, Beaven CM. Individual perception of recovery is related to subsequent sprint performance. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(11):705–709. PubMed ID: 23293008 doi:10.1136/bjsports-2012-091647
- 49.↑
Higgins TR, Cameron ML, Climstein M. Acute response to hydrotherapy after a simulated game of rugby. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(10):2851–2860. PubMed ID: 23287837 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31828151b6
- 50.↑
Higgins TR, Climstein M, Cameron M. Evaluation of hydrotherapy, using passive tests and power tests, for recovery across a cyclic week of competitive rugby union. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(4):954–965. PubMed ID: 22796996 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318260ed9b
- 51.↑
Delextrat A, Calleja-González J, Hippocrate A, Clarke ND. Effects of sports massage and intermittent cold-water immersion on recovery from matches by basketball players. J Sports Sci. 2013;31(1):11–19. PubMed ID: 22935028 doi:10.1080/02640414.2012.719241
- 52.↑
Pointon M, Duffield R. Cold water immersion recovery after simulated collision sport exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(2):206–216. PubMed ID: 21716151 doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31822b0977
- 53.↑
Brophy-Williams N, Landers G, Wallman K. Effect of immediate and delayed cold water immersion after a high intensity exercise session on subsequent run performance. J Sports Sci Med. 2011;10(4):665–670. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2011.11.238
- 54.↑
Ingram J, Dawson B, Goodman C, Wallman K, Beilby J. Effect of water immersion methods on post-exercise recovery from simulated team sport exercise. J Sci Med Sport. 2009;12(3):417–421. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2007.12.011
- 55.↑
Abaïdia AE, Cosyns S, Dupont G. Muscle oxygenation induced by cycling exercise does not accelerate recovery kinetics following exercise-induced muscle damage in humans: a randomized cross-over study. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2019;266:82–88. PubMed ID: 31077799 doi:10.1016/j.resp.2019.05.005
- 56.↑
Özsu İ, Gurol B, Kurt C. Comparison of the effect of passive and active recovery, and self-myofascial release exercises on lactate removal and total quality of recovery. Educ Train. 2018;6(9a):33. doi:10.11114/jets.v6i9a.3511
- 57.↑
Rey E, Lago-Peñas C, Casáis L, Lago-Ballesteros J. The effect of immediate post-training active and passive recovery interventions on anaerobic performance and lower limb flexibility in professional soccer players. J Hum Kinet. 2012;31(2012):121–129. PubMed ID: 23486836 doi:10.2478/v10078-012-0013-9
- 58.↑
Arazi H, Mosavi SS, Basir SS, Karam MG. The effects of different recovery conditions on blood lactate concentration and physiological variables after high intensity exercise in handball players. Sport Sci. 2012;5(2):13–17.
- 59.↑
Andersson H, Karlsen A, Blomhoff R, Raastad T, Kadi F. Active recovery training does not affect the antioxidant response to soccer games in elite female players. Br J Nutr. 2010;104(10):1492–1499. PubMed ID: 20609267 doi:10.1017/S0007114510002394
- 60.↑
Andersson H, Raastad T, Nilsson J, Paulsen G, Garthe I, Kadi F. Neuromuscular fatigue and recovery in elite female soccer: effects of active recovery. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(2):372–380. PubMed ID: 18202563 doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e31815b8497
- 61.↑
Tessitore A, Meeusen R, Pagano R, Benvenuti C, Tiberi M, Capranica L. Effectiveness of active versus passive recovery strategies after futsal games. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(5):1402–1412. PubMed ID: 18714251 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31817396ac
- 62.↑
Gill ND, Beaven CM, Cook C. Effectiveness of post-match recovery strategies in rugby players. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40(3):260–263. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2005.022483
- 63.↑
Dawson B, Cow S, Modra S, Bishop D, Stewart G. Effects of immediate post-game recovery procedures on muscle soreness, power and flexibility levels over the next 48 hours. J Sci Med Sport. 2005;8(2):210–221. PubMed ID: 16075781 doi:10.1016/S1440-2440(05)80012-X
- 64.↑
Suzuki M, Umeda T, Nakaji S, Shimoyama T, Mashiko T, Sugawara K. Effect of incorporating low intensity exercise into the recovery period after a rugby match. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38(4):436–440. PubMed ID: 15273179 doi:10.1136/bjsm.2002.004309
- 65.↑
Delextrat A, Hippocrate A, Leddington-Wright S, Clarke ND. Including stretches to a massage routine improves recovery from official matches in basketball players. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(3):716–727. PubMed ID: 24561594 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182aa5e7c
- 66.↑
Mancinelli CA, Scott Davis D, Aboulhosn L, Brady M, Eisenhofer J, Foutty S. The effects of massage on delayed onset muscle soreness and physical performance in female collegiate athletes. Phys Ther Sport. 2006;7(1):5–13. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2005.10.004
- 67.↑
Bonnar D, Bartel K, Kakoschke N, Lang C. Sleep interventions designed to improve athletic performance and recovery: a systematic review of current approaches. Sports Med. 2018;48(3):683–703. PubMed ID: 29352373 doi:10.1007/s40279-017-0832-x
- 68.↑
Calleja-González J, Mielgo-Ayuso J, Ostojic SM, et al. Evidence-based post-exercise recovery strategies in rugby: a narrative review. Phys Sportsmed. 2019;47(2):137–147. PubMed ID: 30369286 doi:10.1080/00913847.2018.1541701
- 69.↑
Fullagar HHK, Skorski S, Duffield R, Hammes D, Coutts AJ, Meyer T. Sleep and athletic performance: the effects of sleep loss on exercise performance, and physiological and cognitive responses to exercise. Sports Med. 2015;45(2):161–186. doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0260-0
- 70.↑
Ranchordas MK, Dawson JT, Russell M. Practical nutritional recovery strategies for elite soccer players when limited time separates repeated matches. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2017;14(1):35. doi:10.1186/s12970-017-0193-8
- 71.↑
Abreu R, Figueiredo P, Beckert P, et al. Portuguese football federation consensus statement 2020: nutrition and performance in football. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2021;7(3):e001082. doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2021-001082
- 72.↑
Higgins TR, Greene DA, Baker MK. Effects of cold water immersion and contrast water therapy for recovery from team sport: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(5):1443–1460. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001559
- 73.↑
Machado AF, Ferreira PH, Micheletti JK, et al. Can water temperature and immersion time influence the effect of cold water immersion on muscle soreness? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2016;46(4):503–514. doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0431-7
- 74.↑
Calleja-González J, Terrados N, Mielgo-Ayuso J, et al. Evidence-based post-exercise recovery strategies in basketball. Phys Sportsmed. 2016;44(1):74–78. PubMed ID: 26512912 doi:10.1080/00913847.2016.1102033
- 75.↑
Versey NG, Halson SL, Dawson BT. Water immersion recovery for athletes: effect on exercise performance and practical recommendations. Sports Med. 2013;43(11):1101–1130. PubMed ID: 23743793 doi:10.1007/s40279-013-0063-8
- 76.↑
Hohenauer E, Taeymans J, Baeyens JP, Clarys P, Clijsen R. The effect of post-exercise cryotherapy on recovery characteristics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0139028. PubMed ID: 26413718 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139028
- 77.↑
Bleakley C, McDonough S, Gardner E, Baxter GD, Hopkins JT, Davison GW. Cold-water immersion (cryotherapy) for preventing and treating muscle soreness after exercise. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2:CD008262. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008262.pub2
- 78.↑
Tavares F, Walker O, Healey P, Smith TB, Driller M. Practical applications of water immersion recovery modalities for team sports. Strength Cond J. 2018;40(4):48–60. doi:10.1519/ssc.0000000000000380
- 79.↑
Malta ES, Dutra YM, Broatch JR, Bishop DJ, Zagatto AM. The effects of regular cold-water immersion use on training-induced changes in strength and endurance performance: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2021;51(1):161–174. doi:10.1007/s40279-020-01362-0
- 80.↑
Guo J, Li L, Gong Y, et al. Massage alleviates delayed onset muscle soreness after strenuous exercise: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Physiol. 2017;8:747. PubMed ID: 29021762 doi:10.3389/fphys.2017.00747
- 81.↑
Poppendieck W, Wegmann M, Ferrauti A, Kellmann M, Pfeiffer M, Meyer T. Massage and performance recovery: a meta-analytical review. Sports Med. 2016;46(2):183–204. PubMed ID: 26744335 doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0420-x
- 82.↑
Davis HL, Alabed S, Chico TJA. Effect of sports massage on performance and recovery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2020;6(1):e000614. doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000614
