Recovery self-regulation in sport: Theory, research, and practice

Abstract

A large body of research has shown that self-regulation is an important aspect underlying athletes’ well-being and performance. However, self-regulation skills are equally important for post-performance situations, particularly with regard to the recovery process. This review highlights relevant self-regulation skills and provides a brief overview of theories, research findings, and practical recommendations regarding self-regulation and recovery in sport and exercise. Recovery self-regulation is defined as the act of identifying one's current state, one's desired future state and undertaking actions to minimize the discrepancy between both states during the recovery phase (e.g., between training sessions or competitions). Several self-regulation skills relevant to this process are discussed in the current review. First, self-monitoring is a central self-regulatory skill for successfully regulating post-performance states. Second, there is an important role for the regulation of cognition and emotion as complete recovery is only accomplished when both physical and mental resources are replenished. Specifically, detachment and mental rest (i.e., ceasing cognitive effort) enable athletes to restore depleted resources. Finally, self-control is often required to initiate appropriate, and sometimes effortful, recovery activities. That is, athletes may have to exert self-control to undertake activities, particularly when they are tired, stressed, or in a negative mood. Developing recovery self-regulation skills will likely benefit athletes’ physical and mental recovery from training and competition, which can have positive effects on long-term health, well-being, and performance.

Full text

Review
Recovery self-regulation in sport: Theory,
research, and practice
Yannick A Balk
1
and Chris Englert
2
Abstract
A large body of research has shown that self-regulation is an important aspect underlying athletes’ well-being and
performance. However, self-regulation skills are equally important for post-performance situations, particularly with
regard to the recovery process. This review highlights relevant self-regulation skills and provides a brief overview of
theories, research findings, and practical recommendations regarding self-regulation and recovery in sport and exercise.
Recovery self-regulation is defined as the act of identifying one’s current state, one’s desired future state and undertaking
actions to minimize the discrepancy between both states during the recovery phase (e.g., between training sessions or
competitions). Several self-regulation skills relevant to this process are discussed in the current review. First, self-
monitoring is a central self-regulatory skill for successfully regulating post-performance states. Second, there is an
important role for the regulation of cognition and emotion as complete recovery is only accomplished when both
physical and mental resources are replenished. Specifically, detachment and mental rest (i.e., ceasing cognitive effort)
enable athletes to restore depleted resources. Finally, self-control is often required to initiate appropriate, and some-
times effortful, recovery activities. That is, athletes may have to exert self-control to undertake activities, particularly
when they are tired, stressed, or in a negative mood. Developing recovery self-regulation skills will likely benefit athletes’
physical and mental recovery from training and competition, which can have positive effects on long-term health, well-
being, and performance.
Keywords
Cognitive effort, emotion regulation, mental recovery, psychological skills, self-awareness, self-control, self-monitoring
Many athletes dream of winning Olympic gold, becom-
ing World Champion, or completing a marathon. In
order to achieve such goals, athletes’ self-regulation
skills play an important role.
1
Zimmerman
2
defined
self-regulation as ‘self-generated thoughts, feelings,
and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted
to the attainment of personal goals’ (p.14). Not surpris-
ingly, a large body of research has provided empirical
evidence for the important role that self-regulation
skills play before and during performance (for an over-
view, see Englert
3
). However, the regulation of
thoughts, feelings, and actions after performance is
unmistakably important too (e.g., Balk et al.,
4
Beckmann and Kellmann
5
). For instance, imagine an
Olympic athlete who has just underperformed, but who
has to perform again two days later. The time between
competitions will allow her to recover physically, but
will she be able to regulate the negative thoughts and
emotions related to her previous performance?
Moreover, can she initiate the appropriate behaviors
(i.e., actions) in order to adequately recover from the
disappointing and frustrating race? If not, the recovery
process is likely to be compromised, thereby also
limiting optimal preparation for the forthcoming
race. The aim of this review is to provide a brief over-
view of theories, research findings and gaps, as well as
practical recommendations regarding self-regulation
Reviewer: Peter Hassm
en (Southern Cross University, Australia)
1
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of
Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
2
Department of Sport Psychology, Goethe University Frankfurt,
Germany
Corresponding author:
Yannick A Balk, Department of Work and Organizational Psychology,
University of Amsterdam, P. O. Box 15919, 1001 NK Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.
Email: y.a.balk@uva.nl
International Journal of Sports Science
& Coaching
2020, Vol. 15(2) 273–281
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1747954119897528
journals.sagepub.com/home/spo

and recovery in sport and exercise. First, we will elab-
orate on why recovery can be considered a self-
regulation process.
Recovery self-regulation
Abundant research has shown that self-regulation is an
important aspect underlying athletes’ well-being and
performance. Self regulation has been linked to lower
somatic and cognitive anxiety,
6
as well as better com-
petition preparation,
7
endurance performance,
8,9
deci-
sion making,
10
and motor learning.
11
However, we still
know little about post-performance self-regulation, that
is, when athletes enter the recovery phase.
Before and during performances, athletes oftentimes
devote a significant amount of physical and mental
effort, resulting in physical as well as mental fatigue
(e.g., N
ed
elec et al.
12
). If athletes are unable to balance
the demands of their sport with adequate rest and
recovery, negative consequences may arise, such as ath-
lete burnout,
13
decreased performance,
14
and even
injury.
15
Consequently, recovery is considered an inte-
gral part of athletic training and vital for preserving
athletes’ health and well-being.
16–18
In fact, athletes
spend more time in recovery than in active training.
19
Moreover, Bishop et al.
19
differentiate between imme-
diate recovery (i.e., between rapid, finite efforts), short-
term recovery (i.e., between training sets), and training
or competition recovery (i.e., between training sessions
or competitions), of which the latter is the focus of the
current review.
Training or competition recovery usually takes place
away from the actual sport environment and from the
demands of training and competition. This form of
recovery is generally defined as an inter- and intra-
individual multilevel process in time to re-establish
physiological as well as psychological resources.
20
Moreover, recovery is mainly an active or proactive
process, meaning that athletes have an active role
when selecting and engaging in recovery activities.
17
Hence, according to Beckmann and Kellmann
5
“finding the best recovery for one’s self and actually
implementing it is a task that requires self-regulation”
(p.1135). Specifically, recovery can be considered a pro-
cess in which an individual attempts to move from an
actual state (e.g., high fatigue or high stress) to a pre-
ferred or required state of physical and mental activa-
tion.
21,22
Building further on these definitions, recovery
self-regulation can be defined as the act of identifying
one’s current state, one’s desired future state and
undertaking actions to minimize the discrepancy
between both states during the recovery phase (e.g.,
between training sessions or competitions). Different
recovery theories have—indirectly—emphasized the
importance of self-regulation for recovery. For
instance, according to the conceptual model of over-
training and recovery by Kentt€
a and Hassm
en
18
and
the Demand-Induced Strain Compensation Recovery
Model,
23
recovery strategies should be matched with
the main source of stress. Specifically, if an athlete is
experiencing mental strain, this should be balanced
with matching recovery activities such as mental relax-
ation exercises (e.g., meditation, imagery
24
). So, a spe-
cific recovery activity should ideally match the area
that is in the greatest need.
18
Hence, it is important
to be aware of the main source of stress, as well as
being able to identify available recovery strategies,
given potential contextual constrains. In the following
sections we will discuss three specific self-regulatory
skills that we consider particularly relevant for identi-
fying one’s current state, selecting strategies that help
minimize a discrepancy between one’s current state and
the desired future state, as well as initiating these strat-
egies: self-monitoring, regulation of cognition and
emotion, and self-control. For instance, the underper-
forming Olympic athlete mentioned earlier first needs
to have awareness of any negative thoughts and emo-
tions that she is experiencing in order to try to regulate
them. Next, since optimal recovery also hinges on
mental processes, she may need to regulate her
thoughts and emotions. This might be difficult, partic-
ularly when fatigued or in a negative mood state,
25–27
so she may need to override her impulse to eat comfort
food or go to bed too late and instead initiate appro-
priate recovery activities. Finally, she needs to monitor
again what the effect of a specific recovery activity is.
Figure 1 illustrates this process of recovery self-
regulation.
Self-monitoring
One needs to be capable of identifying one’s current
state in order for thoughts, feelings, and behavior to
be successfully regulated (i.e., in line with a desired
future state). A pivotal self-regulatory process is there-
fore the process of comparison and discrepancy detec-
tion through self-monitoring.
28
Self-monitoring takes
place when a desired physiological and psychological
state (i.e., a given standard) is compared against the
Regulaon of
Cognion and
Emoon
Self-Control
(iniaon)
Self-
Monitoring
(awareness)
Figure 1. Process model of recovery self-regulation.
274 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 15(2)

knowledge of one’s current state. Hence, achieving ade-
quate recovery requires awareness of both internal cues
(e.g., thoughts, feelings, sensations) and external cues
(e.g., rewards, opportunities). This process is driven by
the individual’s skill to self-monitor effectively. Since
recovery is considered a multidimensional concept,
adequate recovery is only accomplished when physical,
cognitive, and emotional resources have been replen-
ished.
4,17
The use of self-monitoring skills is therefore
vital to develop awareness of the state of physical
capacities, reflected in muscle pain, fatigue, stiffness,
as well as cognitive and emotional capacities, such as
vigilance and positive affect. The Conservation of
Resources Theory
29,30
proposes that individuals strive
to obtain, retain, and protect their resources.
According to Hobfoll, recovery is inadequate—and
induces stress—when resources are not regained after
resource investment. In sport and exercise contexts,
athletes utilize significant physical and mental (i.e., cog-
nitive and emotional) resources during the training
process and in competition. Subsequently, athletes
will strive to restore these resources. This implies that
while high physical fatigue may require an athlete to
remain idle, high mental fatigue may necessitate a
change of scenery or actively seeking distraction.
4,31
Awareness of the area that is in greatest need of recov-
ery
18
is therefore an important self-regulatory skill
underlying adequate recovery from the demands of
training and competition. This can benefit athletes’
recovery and well-being both in the short-term as well
as the long-term. For example, a recent study under-
scored the importance of self-monitoring for athletes’
long-term well-being by showing that talented tennis
players high in self-monitoring reported less overuse
injuries.
32
Taken together, self-awareness and self-
monitoring are important self-regulatory skills for suc-
cessfully regulating post-performance states.
Moreover, they are a prerequisite for cognitive and
emotional control.
33
Regulation of cognition and emotion
Adequate recovery depends on getting a break from
sport-related demands.
17,34
Therefore, it is recom-
mended that athletes ‘switch-off’ physically and men-
tally from sport-related demands during the recovery
phase.
16,18
A central strategy as far as getting a break
from sport-related demands is concerned is detach-
ment.
35
According to the Stressor-Detachment Model
of Sonnentag and Fritz,
36
the recovery experience of
detachment can attenuate the adverse effects of high
demands on health and well-being. Research in both
work and elite sport has provided empirical evidence
for the stress-buffering role of detachment.
4,36
Like recovery, detachment can also be divided into
cognitive, emotional, and physical components.
4,23
Physical detachment refers to shaking off the physical
exertion from training or competition. To achieve this,
the majority of elite-level performers engage in passive
activities during recovery. For instance, a study among
English professional soccer players showed that they
spent 79% of their waking hours (excluding training/
matches) in sedentary fashion, with an average of
500 min per day.
37
These levels of inactivity are far
greater than comparable non-athlete samples.
While physical rest, or inactivity, can be considered
the primary way of achieving a physical break, its effec-
tiveness for regulating thoughts and feelings can be
questioned.
38
Hence, cognitive detachment means put-
ting all thoughts about one’s sport aside. According to
the Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress,
39
cognitive
processes may extend the duration of physiological
stress responses. Thus, when an athlete is unable to
regulate negative thoughts about a prior stressful situ-
ation (e.g., high pressure to perform, a disappointing
performance, or a conflict), the stress response is not
‘switched off’ and psychophysiological activation
remains high. Along similar lines, the Prolonged
Activation Model postulates that physiological activity
will be extended after a stressful or demanding situa-
tion due to “repeated or chronic activation of the cog-
nitive representation of one or more psychological
stressors” (p.114).
40
This phenomenon, termed persev-
erative cognition, refers to relatively uncontrollable
and unpleasant repetitive thoughts. Perseverative cog-
nition can manifest itself in two ways with regard to the
recovery process.
41
The first way is rumination, which
is defined as repetitively and passively rethinking neg-
ative internal or external events that have occurred in
the past.
42
Rumination occurs when athletes keep
thinking back to a specific competition and wonder
what they could have done differently or why they
felt tired so quickly. The second way is worrying,
which involves negative future-oriented thoughts
about an upcoming event or situation in light of previ-
ous experiences (see also, Grossbard et al.
43
). For
instance, after a disappointing performance an athlete
might continuously worry about whether he is in good
shape for the next competition and whether he is going
to disappoint again.
Cognitive detachment allows an individual to recov-
er as there are no intrusive thoughts related to the past
or future.
44,45
A study among recreational athletes
46
found support for the benefits of cognitive detachment
for mental well-being (i.e., mental energy) as well as
physical health (i.e. injury). Comparably, a recent qual-
itative study among high-level hockey players and staff
members identified a reduction in thinking about one’s
sport as a central psychological recovery experience.
35
This resembles the concept of cognitive detachment.
Balk and Englert 275

Next to the deactivation of thoughts related to sport
and experiencing a reduction in physical and cognitive
activity in general, it is important for athletes to regu-
late post-performance emotions for optimal recovery.
Specifically, it is important to distance oneself from
negative sport-related emotions, which is achieved
through emotional detachment. It is believed that neg-
ative emotions such as anger or disappointment inter-
fere with complete recovery, as they actually increase
arousal, which, over time, can lead to energy deple-
tion.
47,48
In contrast, positive emotions are associated
with the production of certain hormones (e.g., seroto-
nin, dopamine) that may lower the stress response,
thereby promoting recovery.
49
Fredrickson’s
50
Broaden-and-Build Theory posits that experiences of
positive emotions broaden individual’s momentary
thought-action repertoires and serves to build physical
as well as psychological resources. In contrast, negative
emotions narrow the momentary thought–action rep-
ertoire, which may lead athletes to be less receptive to
recovery opportunities.
Supporting the view that regulating post-
performance (negative) emotions is important, a
recent diary study among Dutch elite athletes found
positive associations between daily emotional detach-
ment, but not cognitive detachment, in the prediction
of elite athletes’ daily cognitive and emotional recov-
ery.
4
Moreover, this study provided empirical evidence
for the importance of matching recovery strategies with
respective demands,
18
which is driven by self-
regulatory processes.
4,23
Another diary study showed
that daily physical and emotional detachment from
work benefited elite coaches’ health, well-being, and
work engagement the next day.
51
Mental rest, or a reduction in effortful thinking in
general, has also been identified as an important recov-
ery experience for athletes.
35
As permanently thinking
about sport-related issues is mentally fatiguing, athletes
also require a break from continuous effortful thinking
generally. Therefore, another key psychological resting
experience seems to involve experiencing reduced cog-
nitive demands, or mental rest, which can be obtained
through engagement in low mentally demanding activ-
ities (e.g., listening to music). It is important to note
that detachment and mental rest do not necessarily
resemble the same recovery experiences, as detach-
ment—from sport-related issues—can be obtained
through engagement in mentally demanding activities
(e.g., studying, talking with friends). In sum, deactivat-
ing cognitions and emotions related to the past activity
is important for the recovery process. By allowing a
physical, cognitive, and/or emotional break from
sport-related demands, detachment enables athletes to
restore depleted physical and mental resources.
Moreover, mental rest in general (i.e., ceasing cognitive
effort) appears to be important in promoting recovery
from mental fatigue.
Self-control
Frequently, regulating thoughts and emotions requires
the initiation of specific behavior. Moreover, appropri-
ate regulation of cognitions and emotions not only
ceases psychophysiological activation, it also increases
the likelihood of the initiation of adaptive behaviors.
52
This brings us to the importance of self-control for
recovery. Self-control involves the ability to override
and alter a person’s predominant, or automatic, atten-
tional focus or other automatic tendencies (e.g.,
Baumeister et al.
25
). Athletes differ in terms of their
self-control abilities on a dispositional level, meaning
that some are simply better at regulating their impulses
than others.
53
Self-control plays an important role in
sport and exercise,
3
since the ability to resist immediate
urges or to not give in to automatic impulses in specific
situations enables one to attain preferable long-term
goals instead of settling on short-term achievements.
54
Imagine, for example, a boxer who has to keep his
weight in check: he has to resist the immediate temp-
tation of consuming high-caloric food in order to
achieve his more desirable long-term goal.
It is important to note that in order to restore
resources, athletes occasionally must invest additional
resources. Thus, self-control is often needed to initiate
appropriate, and sometimes effortful, recovery activi-
ties (cf. Baumeister and Vohs
55
). Specifically, athletes
may need to exert self-control to undertake activities
when they are tired, stressed, or in a negative mood
state. High stress, fatigue, and negative mood states
may influence behavior as they shift priority from the
self-regulation of long-term goals to the regulation of
the experienced emotion and feeling better in the short
term.
25
For example, feeling frustrated or disappointed
can lead to behaviors that hinder athletes’ recovery
such as ruminating, withdrawing, arguing, eating
poorly, having trouble falling asleep, or going to bed
too late.
26,27
This effect has also been termed the
‘recovery paradox’.
56
In line with the recovery paradox,
recent studies in sport indicate that when the need for
recovery is high, recovery experiences such as detach-
ment tend to be impaired. In a study by Balk et al.,
4
physical sport demands correlated negatively with
elite athletes’ physical detachment after training, and
emotional sport demands correlated negatively with
emotional detachment after training. Another diary
study among elite athletes showed that higher daily
sport-related demands were related to lower daily
physical and cognitive detachment, which was mediat-
ed by physical fatigue.
57
The authors speak of an
‘underrecovery trap’, in which high fatigue resulting
276 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 15(2)

from previous demands interferes with subsequent
detachment, which may eventually negatively affect
athletes’ long-term health and well-being.
When fatigued or stressed, athletes might also
choose to spend time alone, which supposedly drains
fewer resources, rather than spending time with others.
However, research shows that social activities can ele-
vate one’s mood
58
and provide a source of social sup-
port.
59
Social support and social interaction also
stimulate the production of oxytocin, which is related
to a reduction in blood pressure and cortisol levels.
60
Yet, undertaking social activities might be a challenge
for tired or stressed athletes.
61
For instance, rugby
league players reported a decrease in the frequency of
partaking in social activities during a period of over-
load training.
62
This implies that tired athletes might
withdraw from social activities while they could be
effective in promoting recovery.
Another important recovery strategy for athletes is
sleep, which is considered one of the best available
recovery strategies for athletes.
63
However, while ath-
letes may require more sleep compared to non-athletes
to recover from the demands of training and competi-
tion, sleep deprivation is common among athletes.
63
Sleep deprivation has been linked with training
demands. For example, a study among male cyclists
showed that total sleep time decreased from 7.3 to
6.9 h and sleep efficiency decreased from 86.3% to
84.3% during a high training block of increased
load.
64
Self-control needs to be exerted in order to be
able to engage in sleep-promoting behaviors such as
going to bed in time.
65
In support of this, a study
among a sample of 2431 adults found that higher
self-control was associated with less insufficient sleep
and less bedtime discrepancy (i.e., difference between
what time people wanted to go to bed, and at what time
they actually went to bed), as well as more sleeping
hours.
66
Interestingly, these relations were mediated
by bedtime procrastination (i.e., going to bed later
than intended). A study among professional football
players reported a positive association between
restraint self-control and sleep duration.
67
So, while
sometimes it might be more tempting to stay up and
watch a movie when being sad or tired, it would be in
the athlete’s best interest to go to bed at an appropriate
time. These studies underscore the importance of self-
regulation, and self-control in particular, for athletes’
sleep experiences. However, what the exact role of self-
control is in promoting adequate sleep deserves atten-
tion from future research.
Why is it so difficult to detach from sport, undertake
social activities, and manage sleep when the need for
recovery is actually high? Several theoretical explana-
tions have been put forward to explain these lapses in
self-regulation. First, a core assumption of the strength
model by Baumeister et al.
68
is that individuals only
possess a limited self-control energy pool, which can
become temporarily depleted after having performed
primary acts of self-control. These acts, such as regu-
lating thoughts and emotions (e.g., Wagstaff
9
), manag-
ing anxiety or stress (e.g., Englert and Bertrams
69
),
controlling the speed and execution of a motor
task,
70
and playing through pain, may lead to a tem-
porary exhaustion of available self-control resources.
71
Second, according to the process model, performing a
tiring self-control demanding task (i.e., a ‘have-to’ task)
leads to shifts in motivation, emotion, and attention.
72
When confronted with a subsequent ‘have-to’ task, an
individual is less motivated in working on this task,
assigns this task a rather negative valence, and instead
shifts his/her attentional focus on more pleasant ‘want-
to’ tasks. These shifts are associated with impaired per-
formance in the respective secondary ‘have-to’ task.
The process model seems convincing on a theoretical
level, although it has not been formally investigated in
sport, which is something that needs to be addressed in
future studies
71
(for a notable exception, see Stocker
et al.
73
). In line with the idea of self-control as a limited
energetic resource, it appears that in order to sustain
self-control, one needs to have sufficient energetic
resources left ‘in the tank’.
51
However, future studies
need to address the question whether the recovery par-
adox can be explained by a lack of motivation as well
(Sonnentag, 2018).
Practical implications
The recovery process as discussed in this review may
inform practice as well. Optimal recovery self-
regulation starts with fostering awareness of physiolog-
ical and psychological sensations. Keeping track of
physical and psychological states by keeping a journal
or logbook has been advised to increase awareness.
26
Hence, coaches or sport psychologists should encour-
age athletes to reflect on their training and competition
experiences to initiate the recovery process.
Strategies to regulate cognitions and emotions
include expressive writing
74
and the use of relaxation
techniques (e.g., progressive muscle relaxation, biofeed-
back, systematic breathing, imagery). According to
Kellmann et al.,
24
relaxation techniques can improve
the ability to self-regulate one’s own physical and psy-
chological state. More importantly, achieving a state of
relaxation could lead to a stop of rumination and/or
worry, and may aid regulation of cognitions and emo-
tions.
24
One way in which relaxation techniques might
benefit self-regulation is by increasing heart rate vari-
ability (HRV). Research has indicated that HRV is
associated with behaviors that require executive func-
tioning, such as self-monitoring and behavior
Balk and Englert 277

Initiation.
75
Both deep breathing and HRV biofeed-
back training have been linked with increased
HRV.
76,77
Moreover, a study by Dupee et al.
78
found that after a one-year biofeedback and neurofeed-
back training intervention, Olympic-level athletes
reported increased self-awareness and improved ability
to self-regulate both their physiological and psycholog-
ical states.
Replacing negative emotions with positive emotions
appears to be a good strategy to enhance recovery as
well. Fredrickson
50
argues that positive emotions can
function as antidotes for the effects of negative
emotions. According to this ‘undoing hypothesis’, indi-
viduals who experience positive emotions after a
high-activation negative emotion (e.g., stress, fatigue)
will show faster cardiovascular recovery. So far, how-
ever, studies on positive emotions and recovery in sport
have been rather scarce.
79
One study by Crewther and
Cook
80
showed that athletes who received positive
feedback and focused on what they did well following
a competition showed a better hormonal response than
those who received and focused on negative feedback.
With regard to the initiation process, both the
strength model and the process model of self-control
agree that automatic behavior requires less effort and,
therefore, is more likely to be successfully initiated
(e.g., Webb and Sheeran
81
). While the strength model
would assume that automatized behavior does not
require any conscious control and therefore no
self-control, the process model would argue that
automatized behavior does not possess a ‘have-to’
character meaning that no self-control would need to
be invested in order to display the respective behav-
ior.
71
Creating behavioral habits to increase the likeli-
hood of performing intended behaviors can be done by
forming implementation intentions, or ‘if–then’
plans.
82
An if-then plan has the structure of, ‘If situa-
tion X arises, then I will perform the goal-directed
response Y!’.
70
For instance, an athlete could form
the implementation intention: ‘If I feel sad at home, I
will go for a walk outside’. Linking a specific situation
with a desirable behavior, automatically triggers the
respective behavior if the situation occurs. Forming
implementation intentions may increase the likelihood
of performing intended behaviors and, therefore, could
serve as an effective strategy in preventing paradoxical
recovery effects, such as going to bed late when one is
actually tired.
By defining recovery as a self-regulation process, we
argue that specific self-regulation skills that drive the
recovery process can be learned and improved over
time. In support of this assumption, a qualitative
study by McNeill et al.
83
reported that a self-
regulation intervention for sport coaches who experi-
enced moderate to high levels of burnout enabled them
to self-regulate more effectively by developing various
competencies (e.g., strategic planning for their well-
being, self-monitoring) and strategies (e.g., task delega-
tion, facilitative self-talk). Future research should
therefore concentrate on the investigation of whether
such interventions can also improve athletes’ recovery
self-regulation, particularly when stressed or fatigued.
Promisingly, an intervention study focused on reducing
stress and burnout among eight university-level athletes
found that self-regulation capacity significantly
increased as the intervention progressed throughout a
competitive season, whereas stress and burnout levels
significantly decreased.
84
Conclusion
Expert athletes exhibit better self-regulatory skills than
their non-expert counterparts.
85
Often, these skills have
been related to pre-performance and performance sit-
uations. In agreement with a recent consensus state-
ment on recovery and performance in sport,
34
we
argue that self-regulation skills are equally important
for post-performance situations (e.g., recovery) and
that these skills should be developed to enhance recov-
ery. In this review, we intended to make a case for
considering recovery a dynamic self-regulation process,
consisting of self-monitoring (i.e., awareness), regula-
tion of cognition and emotion, and self-control (i.e.,
behavior initiation). This will hopefully drive future
research on recovery (e.g., using diary studies) as well
as guide practitioners in developing athletes’ recovery
skills. More self-regulation skills exist which can posi-
tively affect the recovery process (cf. Beckmann and
Kellmann
5
). However, we consider the aforementioned
self-regulation skills as central to the recovery process,
particularly with regard to the process of identifying
one’s current state, one’s desired future state and
undertaking action to minimize the discrepancy
between both states. Ultimately, developing self-
regulation skills can benefit athletes’ physical and
mental recovery from training and competition, and
ultimately, can have positive effects on long-term
health, well-being, and performance.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
278 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 15(2)

ORCID iD
Yannick A Balk https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6944-402X
References
1. Elbe A-M and Wikman JM. Psychological factors in
developing high performance athletes. In: Baker J,
Cobley S, Schorer J, et al. (eds) Routledge handbook of
talent identification and development in sport. Abingdon:
Routledge, 2017, pp.169–180.
2. Zimmerman BJ. Attaining self-regulation: a social cogni-
tive perspective. In: Boekaerts M, Pintrich PR and
Zeidner M (eds) Handbook of self-regulation. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press, 2000, pp.13–39.
3. Englert C. The strength model of self-control in sport and
exercise psychology. Front Psychol 2016; 7: 314.
4. Balk YA, De Jonge J, Oerlemans WGM, et al. Testing
the triple- match principle among Dutch elite athletes: a
day-level study on sport demands, detachment and recov-
ery. Psychol Sport Exerc 2017; 33: 7–17.
5. Beckmann J and Kellmann M. Self-regulation and recov-
ery: approaching an understanding of the process of
recovery from stress. Psychol Rep 2004; 95: 1135–1153.
6. Nicholls AR, Polman R and Levy AR. Coping self-
efficacy, pre-competitive anxiety, and subjective perfor-
mance among athletes. Eur J Sport Sci 2010; 10: 97–102.
7. Pilgrim J, Kremer P and Robertson S. The self-regulatory
and task-specific strategies of elite-level amateur golfers
in tournament preparation. Sport Psychol 2018; 32:
169–177.
8. McCormick A, Meijen C, Anstiss PA, et al. Self-regula-
tion in endurance sports: theory, research, and practice.
Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2019; 12:235–264.
9. Wagstaff CR. Emotion regulation and sport perfor-
mance. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2014; 36: 401–412.
10. Furley P, Bertrams A, Englert C, et al. Ego depletion,
attentional control, and decision making in sport.
Psychol Sport Exerc 2013; 14: 900–904.
11. Kolovelonis A, Goudas M and Dermitzaki I. The effects
of self-talk and goal setting on self-regulation of learning
a new motor skill in physical education. Int J Sport Exerc
Psychol 2012; 10: 221–235.
12. Nedelec M, McCall A, Carling C, et al. Recovery in
soccer: part I – post-match fatigue and time course of
recovery. Sports Med 2012; 42: 997–1015.
13. Gustafsson H, Hassm
en P, Kentt€
a G, et al. A qualitative
analysis of burnout in elite Swedish athletes. Psychol
Sport Exerc 2008; 9: 800–816.
14. Halson SL and Jeukendrup AE. Does overtraining exist?
Sports Med 2004; 34: 967–981.
15. Andersen MB and Williams JM. A model of stress and
athletic injury: prediction and prevention. J Sport Exerc
Psychol 1988; 10: 294–306.
16. Jeffreys I. A multidimensional approach to enhancing
recovery. Strength Cond J 2005; 27: 78–85.
17. Kellmann M. Underrecovery and overtraining: different
concepts-similar impact. In: Kellmann M (ed.) Enhancing
recovery: preventing underperformance in athletes.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2002, pp.3–24.
18. Kentt€
a G and Hassm
en P. Overtraining and recovery: a
conceptual model. Sports Med 1998; 26: 1–16.
19. Bishop PA, Jones E and Woods AK. Recovery from
training: a brief review. J Strength Cond Res 2008; 22:
1015–1024.
20. Kellmann M and Kallus KW. The recovery-stress ques-
tionnaire for athletes. In: Kallus KW and Kellmann M
(eds) The recovery-stress questionnaires: user manual.
Frankfurt am Main: Pearson Assessment &
Information GmbH, 2016, pp.86–131.
21. Rydstedt LW and Johnsen SA
˚K. Towards an integration
of recovery and restoration theories. Heliyon 2019; 5:
e02023.
22. Zijlstra FRH, Cropley M and Rydstedt LW. From recov-
ery to regulation: an attempt to reconceptualize ‘recovery
from work’. Stress Health 2014; 30: 244–252.
23. De Jonge J, Spoor E, Sonnentag S, et al. “Take a
break?!”: off- job recovery, job demands and job resour-
ces as predictors of health, active learning, and creativity.
Eur J Work Organ Psychol 2012; 21: 321–348.
24. Kellmann M, Bertollo M, Bosquet L, et al. Recovery and
performance in sport: consensus statement. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform 2018; 13: 240–245.
25. Baumeister RF, Vohs KD and Tice DM. The strength
model of self-control. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2007; 16:
351–355.
26. Davis H, Botterill C and MacNeil K. Mood and self-
regulation changes in underrecovery: an intervention
model. In: Kellmann M (ed.) Enhancing recovery: pre-
venting underperformance in athletes. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 2002, pp.161–179.
27. Wagner DD and Heatherton TF. Emotion and self-
regulation failure. In: JJ Gross (eds) Handbook of emotion
regulation. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2014,
pp.613–628.
28. Karoly P. Mechanisms of self-regulation: a systems view.
Annu Rev Psychol 1993; 44: 23–52.
29. Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at
conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol 1989; 44: 513–524.
30. Hobfoll SE. Social and psychological resources and
adaptation. Rev Gen Psychol 2002; 6:307–324.
31. Loch F, Ferrauti A, Meyer T, et al. Resting the mind – a
novel topic with scarce insights. Considering
potential mental recovery strategies for short rest
periods in sports. Perform Enhancement Health 2019; 6:
148–155.
32. Van der Sluis A, Brink MS, Pluim BM, et al. Self-regu-
latory skills: are they helpful in the prevention of overuse
injuries in talented tennis players? Scand J Med Sci Sports
2019; 29: 1050–1058.
33. Weinberg RS and Gould D. Foundations of sport and
exercise psychology. 6th ed. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2015.
34. Kellmann M, Bertollo M, Bosquet L, et al. Recovery and
performance in sport: consensus statement. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform 2018; 13: 240–245.
35. Eccles DW and Kazmier AW. The psychology of rest in
athletes: an empirical study and initial model. Psychol
Sport Exerc 2019; 44: 90–98.
Balk and Englert 279

36. Sonnentag S and Fritz C. Recovery from job stress: the
stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework.
J Organ Behav 2015; 36: S72–S103.
37. Weiler R, Aggio D, Hamer M, et al. Sedentary behaviour
among elite professional footballers: health and perfor-
mance implications. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 2015; 1:
e000023.
38. Eccles DW, Balk YA, Gretton T, et al. “The forgotten
session”: advancing research on the psychology of rest in
athletes. Submitted for publication.
39. Ursin H and Eriksen H. The cognitive activation theory
of stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2004; 29: 567–592.
40. Brosschot JF, Gerin W and Thayer JF. The perseverative
cognition hypothesis: a review of worry, prolonged stress-
related physiological activation, and health. J Psychosom
Res 2006; 60: 113–124.
41. Geurts SAE. Recovery from work during off- job time.
In: Bauer G and H€
ammig O (eds) Bridging occupational,
organizational and public health. Dordrecht (The
Netherlands): Springer Science + Business Media,
2014, pp. 193–208.
42. Watkins ER. Constructive and unconstructive repetitive
thought. Psychol Bull 2008; 134:163–206.
43. Grossbard JR, Smith RE, Smoll FL, et al. Competitive
anxiety in young athletes: differentiating somatic anxiety,
worry, and concentration disruption. Anxiety Stress
Coping 2009; 22: 153–166.
44. Beckmann J. Interaction of volition and recovery. In:
Kellmann M (ed.) Enhancing recovery: preventing under-
performance in athletes. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2002, pp.269–282.
45. Sonnentag S and Fritz C. The Recovery Experience
Questionnaire: development and validation of a measure
for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work.
J Occup Health Psychol 2007; 12: 204.
46. Balk YA, De Jonge J, Oerlemans WGM, et al. Physical
recovery, mental detachment, and sleep as predictors of
injury and mental energy. J Health Psychol. Epub ahead
of print 2017. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.
1177/1359105317705980.
47. Ekman P. All emotions are basic. In: Ekman P and
Davidson RJ (eds) The nature of emotions. Fundamental
questions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994.
48. Lundqvist C and Kentt€
a G. Positive emotions are not
simply the absence of the negative ones: development
and validation of the Emotional Recovery Questionnaire
(EmRecQ). Sport Psychol 2010; 24: 468–488.
49. Esch T and Stefano GB. The neurobiology of pleasure,
reward processes, addiction and their health implications.
Neuroendocrinol Lett 2004; 25: 235–251.
50. Fredrickson BL. The role of positive emotions in positive
psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive
emotions. Am Psychol 2001; 56: 218–226.
51. Balk YA, De Jonge J, Geurts SAE, et al. Antecedents and
consequences of perceived autonomy support in elite
sport: a diary study linking coaches’ off-job recovery
and athletes’ performance satisfaction. Psychol Sport
Exerc 2019; 44: 26–34.
52. Sapolsky RM. Stress, stress-related disease, and emotion-
al regulation. In: Gross J (ed.) Handbook of emotion reg-
ulation. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2007,
pp.606–615.
53. Tangney JP, Baumeister RF and Boone AL. High self-
control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better
grades, and interpersonal success. J Pers 2004; 72:
271–324.
54. Hagger MS, Wood C, Stiff C, et al. Ego depletion and the
strength model of self-control: a meta-analysis. Psychol
Bull 2010; 136: 495–525.
55. Baumeister RF and Vohs KD. Strength model of self-
regulation as limited resource: assessment, controversies,
update. In: James MO and Mark PZ (eds) Advances in
experimental social psychology. Vol. 54. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press, 2016, pp.67–127.
56. Sonnentag S. The recovery paradox: Portraying the com-
plex interplay between job stressors, lack of recovery, and
poor well-being. Res Organ Behav 2018; 38: 169–185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.11.002
57. Balk YA, De Jonge J and Geurts SA. The ‘underrecovery
trap’: how physical fatigue impairs the physical and
mental recovery process. Submitted for publication.
58. Watson D. Basic problems in positive mood regulation.
Psychol Inq 2000; 11: 205–209.
59. Sonnentag S. Work, recovery activities, and individual
well-being: a diary study. J Occup Health Psychol 2001;
6: 196–210.
60. Uvnas-Moberg K and Petersson M. Oxytocin, a media-
tor of anti-stress, well-being, social interaction, growth
and healing. Z Psychosom Med Psychother 2005; 51:
57–80.
61. Botterill C and Wilson C. Overtraining: emotional and
interdisciplinary dimensions. In: Kellmann M (ed.)
Enhancing recovery: preventing underperformance in ath-
letes. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2002, pp.143–159.
62. Coutts AJ and Reaburn P. Monitoring changes in rugby
league players’ perceived stress and recovery during
intensified training. Percept Mot Skills 2008; 106:
904–916.
63. Halson SL and Juliff LE. Sleep, sport, and the brain. In:
Wilson MR, Walsh V and Parkin B (eds) Progress in
brain research. Cambridge: Elsevier, 2017, pp.13–31.
64. Teng E, Lastella M, Roach G, et al. The effect of training
load on sleep quality and sleep perception in elite male
cyclists. In: Kennedy GA and Sargent C (eds) Little
clock, big clock: molecular to physiological clocks.
Melbourne: Australasian Chronobiology Society, 2011,
pp.5–10.
65. Nauts S and Kroese FM. The role of self-control in sleep
behavior. In: de Ridder KFD and Adriaanse M (eds)
Routledge International Handbook of Self-Control in
Health and Well-Being. Abingdon: Routledge, 2017, pp.
288–299.
66. Kroese FM, Evers C, Adriaanse MA, et al. Bedtime pro-
crastination: a self-regulation perspective on sleep insuf-
ficiency in the general population. J Health Psychol 2016;
21: 853–862.
280 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 15(2)

67. Toering T and Jordet G. Self-control in professional
soccer players. J Appl Sport Psychol 2015; 27: 335–350.
68. Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Muraven M, et al. Ego
depletion: is the active self a limited resource? J Pers Soc
Psychol 1998; 74: 1252–1265.
69. Englert C and Bertrams A. Anxiety, ego depletion, and
sports performance. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2012; 34:
580–599.
70. Fullerton C. Self-control in sport: does willpower resem-
ble a muscle? In: Lane A (ed.) Sport and exercise psychol-
ogy. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2016,
pp.105–126.
71. Englert C. The self-regulation of human performance: a
critical discussion and future directions for self-control
research. Perform Enhancement Health 2019; 6: 156–157.
72. Inzlicht M, Schmeichel BJ and Macrae CN. Why self-
control seems (but may not be) limited. Trends Cogn
Sci 2014; 18: 127–133.
73. Stocker E, Seiler R, Schmid J, et al. Hold your strength!
Motivation, attention, and emotion as potential psycho-
logical mediators between cognitive and physical self-
control. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol. Epub ahead of
print 2019. DOI: 10.1037/spy0000173.
74. Lepore SJ and Smyth JM (eds) The writing cure: how
expressive writing promotes health and emotional well-
being. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association, 2002.
75. Holzman JB and Bridgett DJ. Heart rate variability indi-
ces as bio-markers of top-down self-regulatory mecha-
nisms: a meta-analytic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev
2017; 74: 233–255.
76. Laborde S, Allen MS, G€
ohring N, et al. The effect of
slow-paced breathing on stress management in
adolescents with intellectual disability. J Intellect
Disabil Res 2017; 61: 560–567.
77. Lehrer PM, Vaschillo E, Vaschillo B, et al. Heart rate
variability biofeedback increases baroreflex gain and
peak expiratory flow. Psychosom Med 2003; 65: 796–805.
78. Dupee M, Forneris T and Werthner P. Perceived
outcomes of a biofeedback and neurofeedback training
intervention for optimal performance: learning to
enhance self-awareness and self-regulation with
Olympic athletes. Sport Psychol 2016; 30: 339–349.
79. McCarthy PJ. Positive emotion in sport performance:
current status and future directions. Int Rev Sport
Exerc Psychol 2011; 4: 50–69.
80. Crewther BT and Cook CJ. Effects of different post-
match recovery interventions on subsequent athlete hor-
monal state and game performance. Physiol Behav 2012;
106: 471–475.
81. Webb TL and Sheeran P. Can implementation intentions
help to overcome ego- depletion? J Exp Soc Psychol 2003;
39: 279–286.
82. Gollwitzer PM. Implementation intentions: strong effects
of simple plans. Am Psychol 1999; 54: 493.
83. McNeill K, Durand-Bush N and Lemyre PN. Can
learning self-regulatory competencies through a guided
intervention improve coaches’ burnout symptoms and
well-being? J Clin Sport Psychol 2019; 1: 1–21.
84. Dubuc-Charbonneau N and Durand-Bush N. Moving to
action: the effects of a self-regulation intervention on the
stress, burnout, well-being, and self-regulation capacity
levels of university student-athletes. J Clin Sport
Psychol 2015; 9: 173–192.
85. Cleary TJ and Zimmerman BJ. Self-regulation differen-
ces during athletic practice by experts, non-experts, and
novices. J Appl Sport Psychol 2001; 13: 185–206.
Balk and Englert 281