Not all passive recovery is created equal. Completely anecdotal but I feel much less sore if my rest day is spent on things like walking to the supermarket and doing some lite chores around the house than if I spend 8hrs on the couch watching Netflix
I've always thought of active recovery as a ten minute walk, some mobility/stretching, and a few sets of non-explosive triples with the bar. I find those days help me feel better for the next training session. "Feel" being the weakest link here but also I'm old.
What about strict pressing an empty bar for example? I feel like the pump from that would allow your rotator cuffs to recover better bc of peripheral blood flow , and same for like doing curls for elbow tendinitis EDIT : what I explained I think is rehab not active recovery idk
This is interesting. I'd love to see whether this crosses over to sports with less than 50 hours recovery. NBA players regularly play back to back or even 3 in 3 days. Grand tour cyclists swear by active recovery (although with only 2 rest days per tour- there are only 2 of these). I'd like to see a longitudinal continuation of this- over a season and see if there's variation.
Yeh if you’ve done cycling there’s no question here. A GC rider couldn’t stand up after a rest day without a recovery ride never mind compete in a race. I don’t know what’s going on biologically - I don’t think anybody does - so maybe calling it ‘recovery’ is just a semantic distraction. Ps soccer just seems a terrible sport for this type of analysis; something with a more objective measure like weightlifting or cycling would be better.
What if your fitness wearable tells you you're fully recovered but you're unable to walk due to week 1 of RTA...surely an hour on the rower would sort it
I’ll have to review the study itself but specifically for the neuromuscular tests have those tests previously been shown to be sensitive enough to change in fatigue status for this athlete population? CMJ specifically has a lot of mixed results without force plate data to accompany. Further the GPS and fitness data is pretty broad. Were the 100hz samples pulled and analyzed over specific time points of the comparison and what statistical process was being used from that? While I know there is a lot of other research showing mixed results also, I think in the end the most important thing is the subjective perception of recovery after interventions. Hard to argue much is better aside from something incredibly sensitive like FT:CT, but that also needs to be proven to be sensitive enough for that population etc etc
In my training goals I s mainly getting a bigger total in powerlifting but I found that rowing on a concept 2 makes me feel good but fatigues my quads. I wish there was a paper about moderate cardio and maximal strength measures
Very interesting. I wonder why I had much better results, then, by adding little GPP workouts between major sessions. Just more volume/work capacity, I guess.
I don't think a professional football player would even expect muscle soreness in the form of DOMS from playing a match. So I don't think it's the best method to study DOMS decay. General fatigue, blood markers, sure. But you aren't getting a massive creatinine spike from this kind of exercise
So interestingly active recovery MIGHT have a small effect on DOMS but DOMS are not a good indicator of recovery or muscle damage. We'll definitely have a paper on it though!
This study definitely doesn't imply "active recovery doesn't work". And the robustness is so weak that the paper probably doesn't generate a substantial conclusion of any kind. In other words, grain of salt, lads.
@@cheeks7050 go read up on Null Hypothesis. the logic is, as very clearly stated, that the study referenced is not sufficient to accept or reject the null hypothesis. thanks.
@@cheeks7050 Yes. The sample size is small and unvaried, and the period is short. But what is most limiting is that the definition of "active recovery" is too narrowly defined as reps using 40% max (IIRC it's been a while since I watched this vid). Active recovery can be so many other things. For example, I use 5lb dumbbells for shoulder circles for "active recovery" on my recovery days. Ditto a few bodyweight squats and pushups to get some blood and nutrients to my joints. It works for me. Here is a recent meta-analysis "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." "Active recovery (AR) had a similar effect to CWT on DOMS (but with a larger effect size) with no impact on perceived fatigue. The effect of AR after exhaustive exercise on DOMS has been known for more than 30 years (Armstrong, 1984)."
All the paper reviews are great. No one else is providing what you guys do. You guys are gem 💎.
Not all passive recovery is created equal. Completely anecdotal but I feel much less sore if my rest day is spent on things like walking to the supermarket and doing some lite chores around the house than if I spend 8hrs on the couch watching Netflix
I've always thought of active recovery as a ten minute walk, some mobility/stretching, and a few sets of non-explosive triples with the bar. I find those days help me feel better for the next training session. "Feel" being the weakest link here but also I'm old.
This video just provided me 19 blissful minutes of high-quality passive recovery
What about strict pressing an empty bar for example? I feel like the pump from that would allow your rotator cuffs to recover better bc of peripheral blood flow , and same for like doing curls for elbow tendinitis
EDIT : what I explained I think is rehab not active recovery idk
You just described prehab work 😂
This is interesting. I'd love to see whether this crosses over to sports with less than 50 hours recovery. NBA players regularly play back to back or even 3 in 3 days. Grand tour cyclists swear by active recovery (although with only 2 rest days per tour- there are only 2 of these). I'd like to see a longitudinal continuation of this- over a season and see if there's variation.
If nothing happens short time, why would it change in long time? What is your hypothesis?
Yeh if you’ve done cycling there’s no question here. A GC rider couldn’t stand up after a rest day without a recovery ride never mind compete in a race. I don’t know what’s going on biologically - I don’t think anybody does - so maybe calling it ‘recovery’ is just a semantic distraction. Ps soccer just seems a terrible sport for this type of analysis; something with a more objective measure like weightlifting or cycling would be better.
What if your fitness wearable tells you you're fully recovered but you're unable to walk due to week 1 of RTA...surely an hour on the rower would sort it
I’ll have to review the study itself but specifically for the neuromuscular tests have those tests previously been shown to be sensitive enough to change in fatigue status for this athlete population? CMJ specifically has a lot of mixed results without force plate data to accompany. Further the GPS and fitness data is pretty broad. Were the 100hz samples pulled and analyzed over specific time points of the comparison and what statistical process was being used from that? While I know there is a lot of other research showing mixed results also, I think in the end the most important thing is the subjective perception of recovery after interventions. Hard to argue much is better aside from something incredibly sensitive like FT:CT, but that also needs to be proven to be sensitive enough for that population etc etc
In my training goals I s mainly getting a bigger total in powerlifting but I found that rowing on a concept 2 makes me feel good but fatigues my quads. I wish there was a paper about moderate cardio and maximal strength measures
Very interesting. I wonder why I had much better results, then, by adding little GPP workouts between major sessions.
Just more volume/work capacity, I guess.
Enjoying the vids lads
Thanks! 🙏
Paper review on ZMA?
I don't think a professional football player would even expect muscle soreness in the form of DOMS from playing a match. So I don't think it's the best method to study DOMS decay. General fatigue, blood markers, sure. But you aren't getting a massive creatinine spike from this kind of exercise
Interesting stuff.
How do I go super saiyan?
This is gonna be good :)
So basically the repeated both effect isn't useful for DOMS recovery? I'd love yous to go through a paper on good DOMS recovery.
So interestingly active recovery MIGHT have a small effect on DOMS but DOMS are not a good indicator of recovery or muscle damage. We'll definitely have a paper on it though!
Can I have a heart? ❤
💩
This study definitely doesn't imply "active recovery doesn't work". And the robustness is so weak that the paper probably doesn't generate a substantial conclusion of any kind. In other words, grain of salt, lads.
@@cheeks7050 That isn't my logic at all.
@@cheeks7050 it's pretty clear you don't know anything about statistics. moving on.
@@cheeks7050 go read up on Null Hypothesis. the logic is, as very clearly stated, that the study referenced is not sufficient to accept or reject the null hypothesis. thanks.
@@cheeks7050 Yes. The sample size is small and unvaried, and the period is short. But what is most limiting is that the definition of "active recovery" is too narrowly defined as reps using 40% max (IIRC it's been a while since I watched this vid). Active recovery can be so many other things. For example, I use 5lb dumbbells for shoulder circles for "active recovery" on my recovery days. Ditto a few bodyweight squats and pushups to get some blood and nutrients to my joints. It works for me.
Here is a recent meta-analysis
"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."
"Active recovery (AR) had a similar effect to CWT on DOMS (but with a larger effect size) with no impact on perceived fatigue. The effect of AR after exhaustive exercise on DOMS has been known for more than 30 years (Armstrong, 1984)."