Skip to content

Influence of recovery strategies upon performance and perceptions following fatiguing exercise

Influence of recovery strategies upon performance and perceptions of healthy male recreational athletes following fatiguing exercise

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ISRCTN
Registry ID
ISRCTN14415088
Enrollment
30
Registered
2017-11-05
Start date
2013-12-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2018-08-20

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Performance and perceptual recovery from exercise Not Applicable

Interventions

Healthy male participants undertook a simulated team-game fatiguing circuit followed by one of the following recovery protocols undertaken for 14 min. A verified randomisation tool (random.org) was us
however their data were included for completeness in quantitative analysis of the completed recovery protocols). 1. Cold water immersion included being seated in an inflatable bath, with shoulders im

Sponsors

James Cook University
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
Male

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Uninjured 2. Males 3. Able to complete the fatiguing exercise 4. Participated in regular aerobic exercise 5. Aged 18-40 years

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Not elite athletes 2. Contact sport athletes

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Measured on each initial testing day - there were 5 initial testing days (1 per recovery strategy), on these days the measures were assessed at baseline (when participants arrived) and 1 hr after the fatiguing exercise. These measures were then assessed at 24 and 48 hr post fatiguing exercise 1. Muscle soreness assessed using the muscle soreness scale, a 10-point Likert scale from 0 (no soreness) to 10 (very very sore) (Pointon & Duffield, 2012) 2. Total quality recovery (TQR) assessed using a scale that ranged from 6 (below very very poor recovery) to 20 (above very very good recovery) (Kenttä & Hassmén, 1998) 3. Flexibility assessed using the sit and reach test 4. Repeated sprint ability, assessed using a maximal 20 m sprint every 30 sec with six repetitions (Elias, Varley, Wyckelsma, McKenna, Minahan, & Aughey, 2012; Elias, Wyckelsma, Varley, McKenna, & Aughey, 2013) 5. Jump height and power measured using the countermovement jump test including five jumps of maximal height on a mat, one jump every 15 sec (Eias et al., 2012; King & Duffield, 2009)

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
1. Daily analysis of life demands, assessed using the DALDA questionnaire which lists a series of life-stress and symptoms of stress, where participants label each item with a letter; “a” means worse than normal, “b” means normal and “c” indicates better than normal (Rushall, 1990), assessed at the beginning of the testing day 2. Hydration status, assessed via urine specific gravity measurement with the use of a handheld refractometer. These measures were conducted when participants arrive on the initial testing day, and when they arrive for their 24 and 48 hr post testing session days 3. Heart rate monitored throughout the fatiguing exercise 4. Rating of perceived exertion, measured using Borg’s RPE (Borg, 1998) at the completion of the fatiguing exercise

Countries

Australia

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Mar 8, 2026