Comparison of Different Recovery Strategies After High-Intensity Functional Training: A Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial.
Level 2 - randomized trial
Individual randomized crossover trial
PubMed 35185620 · doi:10.3389/fphys.2022.819588
What was done
Fifteen recreational male CrossFit athletes (mean age 29 ± 8 years) completed a high-intensity functional training session followed by one of three 15-minute recovery interventions in a randomized crossover design: low-intensity leg pedaling (Exercise), lower-limb surface neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), or total rest (Control). Perceptual outcomes (rating of perceived exertion [RPE], delayed-onset muscle soreness [DOMS]), physiological markers (heart rate, blood lactate, muscle oxygen saturation), and jump performance were assessed at baseline and across recovery time points up to 24 hours post-exercise.
What was found
A significant condition-by-time interaction occurred for RPE (p = 0.035), driven by a non-significant trend toward lower RPE immediately post-intervention with NMES compared with Control (p = 0.061). No other significant interaction effects were found for jump performance, DOMS, heart rate, blood lactate, or muscle oxygen saturation (all p > 0.05). Exact group means and standard deviations were not provided in the abstract.
Why it matters
Active recovery interventions like low-intensity pedaling and NMES are widely used in functional fitness, but these findings suggest they offer no clear physiological or performance advantage over passive rest in the 24 hours following an acute workout.
Limits
The study had a very small sample size (n = 15) and included only young male recreational athletes, limiting generalizability to females or elite competitors. The trial was likely underpowered to detect small effect sizes across secondary physiological variables.
Cited by
- partial Neuromuscular electrical stimulation devices (such as Firefly) have been shown in multiple studies to be effective for athletic recovery.