Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
OPINION
published: 01 September 2021
doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.707503
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living | www.frontiersin.org 1September 2021 | Volume 3 | Article 707503
Edited by:
Robert Allan,
University of Central Lancashire,
United Kingdom
Reviewed by:
James Malone,
Liverpool Hope University,
United Kingdom
Chris Mawhinney,
Mahidol University, Thailand
Susan Y. Kwiecien,
Nicholas Institute of Sports Medicine
and Athletic Trauma (NISMAT),
United States
*Correspondence:
Robin T. Thorpe
robin.thorpe@live.co.uk
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Elite Sports and Performance
Enhancement,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
Received: 10 May 2021
Accepted: 29 July 2021
Published: 01 September 2021
Citation:
Thorpe RT (2021) Post-exercise
Recovery: Cooling and Heating, a
Periodized Approach.
Front. Sports Act. Living 3:707503.
doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.707503
Post-exercise Recovery: Cooling and
Heating, a Periodized Approach
Robin T. Thorpe 1,2
*
1Football Exchange, Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool,
United Kingdom, 2College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States
Keywords: recovery, fatigue, exercise, injury, cooling, heating, muscle damage (DOMS), periodization
RISING IMPORTANCE OF RECOVERY
Recovery is regarded as a multifaceted (e.g., physiological, psychological) restorative process
relative to time and modulated by external load, individual response to stress, and often dictated
by external athletic competition and demand (Kellmann et al., 2018). The increasing physical
demands of athletic competition, particularly, team sports (Barnes et al., 2014), involving high
fixture frequency, has further exacerbated the physical and mental load placed on athletes (Ekstrand
et al., 2018). Athletes are now routinely exposed to longitudinal demands with, in some cases, only
48 h of recovery time between competitions. Fatigue may be defined as “an inability to complete a
task that was once achievable within a recent time frame” (Pyne and Martin, 2011; Halson, 2014)
and derived from central and/or peripheral origins. Recovery time between successive competitions
may be insufficient to allow athletes to fully regenerate leading to fatigue, which may increase the
risk of under-performance, non-functional overreaching, injury, and illness (Dupont et al., 2010;
Bengtsson et al., 2013). Demands are further increased in athletes competing in continental leagues,
play-off phases, international tournaments, and are further aggravated in circumstances such as the
English Premier League that does not include a winter break (Ekstrand et al., 2018) or in recent
times the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic (Seshadri et al., 2021). Increased athlete training and
competition availability as a result of a reduction in injuries, substantially improves the likelihood
of success of an individual or team (Hägglund et al., 2013). Changes in injury occurrence also have a
significant impact, particularly, financial implications (team underachievement and player salaries)
of sporting organizations due to injury-related decrements in performance (Eliakim et al., 2020).
Growing demands and the rising importance of improving recovery have also prompted athletes to
inclusively invest in further bespoke personal support in an attempt to accelerate recovery.
EVIDENCE AND PRACTICE: A CONFUSING LANDSCAPE
A certain degree of fatigue, resulting in functional overreaching, is required to mediate adaptations
to training, which drive performance enhancement (Noakes, 2000). However, excessive fatigue
through insufficient recovery may increase susceptibility to non-functional over-reaching, injury,
and illness of the players (Nimmo and Ekblom, 2007). Fatigue can be compensated with recovery
strategies which serve to restore homeostasis on a physiological and psychological level (Kellmann,
2002). Researchers and practitioners alike have investigated the efficacy of commonly utilized
interventions to combat the deleterious effects of athletic training and competition (Barnett, 2006;
Howatson and van Someren, 2008; Nédélec et al., 2012; Dupuy et al., 2018). A recent investigation
(Altarriba-Bartes et al., 2020) reviewing commonly used recovery strategies in professional soccer
found that all teams were utilizing at least one recovery strategy following games; however, the
range of interventions used was substantially different between teams with water immersion (cold
Thorpe Recovery Periodization: Cooling and Heating
and hot), massage, and foam rolling representing 74, 70, and 57%
respectively (Altarriba-Bartes et al., 2020).
It is imperative that the origin of fatigue is understood in
order to most effectively return the human body to homeostasis
following exercise. Furthermore, an understanding of the origin
of fatigue may help with tailoring an appropriate recovery
strategy to enhance the accelerated return to homeostasis.
Recovery time from training-induced stress may differ within
and between the different organismic systems of the human body
(Kellmann et al., 2018). The increased focus on athlete recovery
within professional sport has naturally been followed by many
scientific investigations attempting to understand the efficacy of
a range of commonly performed strategies (Howatson and van
Someren, 2008; Leeder et al., 2012). However, few studies have
been able to demonstrate the efficacy of strategies improving
recovery in athletes following training or competition (Bieuzen
et al., 2013; Hill et al., 2014; Dupuy et al., 2018; Davis et al.,
2020).
Much of the positive evidence for recovery strategies lies with
an enhanced perceptual outcome of recovery, often attributed
to an athlete’s belief in the modality or the placebo effect
(Broatch et al., 2014; Wilson et al., 2018). Indeed, evidence
exists whereby recovery strategies have not improved fatigue
levels further than that of the placebo effect (Cook and Beaven,
2013; Broatch et al., 2014; Malta et al., 2019). Research has
traditionally focused on administering one recovery intervention
at a time, whereas in the applied setting athletes are more likely to
administer multiple interventions in varying sequences due to the
many strategies available, of which many lack efficacy (Costello
et al., 2016; Davis et al., 2020; Skorski et al., 2020). Although
extensive, the existing literature base investigating recovery
strategy efficacy still lacks clarity and directional influence for
practitioners and athletes alike. Much of the data involves
study designs investigating changes in physical performance and
perceptual or muscle damage markers following an exhaustive
protocol or athletic competition (Leeder et al., 2012; Davis et al.,
2020). These methodological variances alongside less realistic
laboratory protocols detached from contextual performance and
investigation of only the acute recovery response (0–72 h),
including sub-elite subject cohorts may be some of the reasons
why inconclusive data exists (i.e., sole strategies performed
across entire recovery continuum), indirectly, creating confusion
for practical application. Movement toward a more periodized
research design approach has occurred where multiple strategies
have been assessed in an attempt to improve recovery (Martínez-
Guardado et al., 2020; Pooley et al., 2020). Reasons for applying
multiple modalities may arise from the fact that athletes are now
exposed to a variety of strategies and professional philosophy,
proposed to enhance recovery, rather than a physiology-based
rationale. Athletes performing multiple strategies rather than a
singular modality may be a step forward; however, a more critical,
evidence-based reasoning for the application of periodizing
varying strategies is required. A better understanding of the exact
physiological systems and mechanisms of fatigue may provide
a clearer landscape into unraveling recovery from exercise,
performance, and injury.
MATCHING THE STRESS AND
INTERVENTION: MONITORING-BASED
PRACTICE
Physical demands of both individual and team sports involve
varying contributions of metabolic and mechanical stress to
tissue. Mechanical stress deriving primarily from eccentric
contractions results in a temporary reduction in muscle function,
an increase in intracellular proteins in the blood, an increase in
perceptual muscle soreness, and evidence of swelling (Howatson
and van Someren, 2008). Thereafter, secondary damage is linked
to the subsequent inflammatory response and macrophage and
neutrophil infiltration which, further, in isolation compromise
the mechanically stressed area (Merrick, 2002). Metabolic
factors such as reductions in adenosine triphosphate (ATP),
creatine phosphate, glycogen (Krustrup et al., 2006), and pH
(Brophy et al., 2009) may also induce fatigue following exercise.
Biochemical changes in electrolytes and calcium may also
have negative effects alongside hypoxia at the muscle cell level
contributing to metabolic fatigue. Mechanical stress and/or
metabolic fatigue may also contribute to neuromuscular cost
via altered muscle potassium and pH levels (Tee et al., 2007)
and excitation contraction coupling, respectively (Jones, 1996).
Environmental factors and exercise-induced heat generation
(Arbogast and Reid, 2004), which increases the concentration
of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate oxidase within
the muscle fiber resulting in an increase in the production
of reactive oxygen species from the mitochondria and from
the infiltrating inflammatory cells (Powers and Jackson, 2008)
further exacerbating potential mechanical damage. The variance
in physiological origin associated with exercise and competition
infers that it is illogical that a single recovery strategy and/or a
generic “one size fits all” approach would accelerate each of the
systems discussed (Minett and Costello, 2015). Evidence exists
where a singular temperature-based strategy applied locally to the
quadriceps over the entire recovery continuum failed to further
accelerate recovery beyond the acute period (0-72 h), albeit,
following severe marathon running–derived mechanical and
metabolic stress (Kwiecien et al., 2020a,b). Moreover, Petersen
and Fyfe (2021) suggested, from a chronic perspective, long-term
application of a singular intervention may have disadvantages
relating to adaptation (Petersen and Fyfe, 2021). It appears
that a binary perspective to recovery has arisen within the
literature, which in turn may have influenced the applied setting.
Alternatively, a framework where strategies are periodized to
match the individual symptoms, organismic fatigued system,
external load or the response to stress may be a more preferred
approach (Thorpe et al., 2017; Kellmann et al., 2018). Indeed,
monitoring of recovery or the response to load may provide
insights into the exact physiological stress an athlete is currently
experiencing. A recent review stated that the quantification
of physiological stress via athlete response outcome measures,
athlete self-report, heart rate-derived autonomic nervous system,
neuromuscular functional jump/eccentric/concentric/isometric
protocols, biochemical/immunological/endocrine, and joint
range of motion could improve practical prescription of
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living | www.frontiersin.org 2September 2021 | Volume 3 | Article 707503
Thorpe Recovery Periodization: Cooling and Heating
modalities in enhancing recovery (Thorpe et al., 2017). For
example, assessing changes in perceived muscle soreness or
the autonomic nervous system via heart rate-derived metrics
(heart rate variability and/or heart rate recovery) may establish
whether or not an athlete is experiencing symptoms associated
with mechanical damage (Dupuy et al., 2018), thus a gateway
to understanding and quantifying which strategies may be
most appropriate for improving this fatigued system. Attention
ought to be prioritized to framework strategies that match the
associated physiological stress along the recovery continuum in
a systematic manner.
TEMPERATURE-DERIVED APPROACH:
PERIODIZING COOLING AND HEATING
Beyond sleep, nutrition, and hydration, recent work has focused
on the application of various temperature-based modalities
in an attempt to accelerate recovery (McGorm et al., 2018;
Kwiecien and McHugh, 2021). Indeed, among the vast array
of recovery strategies commonly used by athletes, temperature-
based modalities have shown the most promise, although, still
the data are inconclusive (Jakeman et al., 2009; Stanley et al.,
2012; Broatch et al., 2014). One of the most common recovery
strategies used is cryotherapy, or the application of cooling
(Altarriba-Bartes et al., 2020). Cooling has been performed for
decades in relation to injury, and intuitively, transferred to
recovery from exercise in more recent times. Topical cooling,
cold water immersion, whole body cryotherapy, and more
recently phase change material are most commonly used in
both the clinical and professional sports settings (Kwiecien
and McHugh, 2021). The mechanistic response between these
modalities has been shown to differ and in some circumstances
provides a completely different physiological effect (Mawhinney
et al., 2017; Kwiecien and McHugh, 2021). The ultimate
objective for cooling is to reduce deep muscle temperature,
in an attempt to favorably reduce blood flow and metabolism
at the affected muscle site, in an effort to diminish the
secondary damage phase (Merrick, 2002). A recent review
suggested that repeat application or elongating cooling time
would lead to the most advantageous results in reducing deep
muscle temperature, in turn, the proliferation of the secondary
damage phase (Kwiecien and McHugh, 2021). Importantly,
local changes in muscle temperature (cooling or heating) may
influence enzymatic activity and effect rates of intramuscular
glycogen resynthesis (Cheng et al., 2017). Indeed, research has
also investigated the effects of heating regarding performance,
adaptation, and to a lesser extent recovery (McGorm et al.,
2018). Heat therapy including hot water immersion has not
been widely investigated in terms of athletic recovery, although,
anecdotally performed frequently in athletes across many sports
(Altarriba-Bartes et al., 2020). Data exists supporting heating
for stimulating local blood supply and metabolism in tissues,
and emerging evidence indicate that heat activates more specific
molecular events, including changes in gene expression, anti-
inflammatory and antioxidant effects, glycogen resynthesis,
mitochondrial biogenesis, heat shock protein expression, and
cellular healing (Hoekstra et al., 2008; McGorm et al., 2018;
Nadarajah et al., 2018). Data from animal and human studies
have shown metabolic-based recovery to be accelerated following
heat application which in turn modified the release of tetanic
[Ca2+] and glycogen resynthesis rates compared to cooling
(Cheng et al., 2017). Considering the existing evidence of
the possible recovery kinetics to both cooling and heating, it
appears that increasing or decreasing tissue temperature may
provide advantageous responses at varying points on the recovery
continuum, which are associated to mechanical damage and
metabolic fatigue.
A PRACTICAL GUIDE
An array of different strategies are used by athletes in an
attempt to alleviate the deleterious symptoms associated with
exercise and competition (Nédélec et al., 2013; Altarriba-
Bartes et al., 2020). However, there is a lack of consensus
in how to design and prescribe strategies in improving the
multifactorial systems of recovery. It appears that the first
and most critical physiological event to attempt to mediate
is the secondary damage phase shortly following mechanical
damage. The latest evidence suggests that prolonged cooling
is the most suitable intervention (Kwiecien and McHugh,
2021). Cooling via water immersion (in some cases multiple
exposures) or local phase change material has been shown to
have the most effective results in reducing tissue temperature
(Mawhinney et al., 2017; Kwiecien et al., 2020b). Hereafter,
and to promote removal and enhanced transportation of
metabolic byproducts, and possible modulation of cellular
healing, hemodynamics and substrate resynthesis (McGorm
et al., 2018) heating is preferred via sauna microwave diathermy,
water-perfused garments, hot water immersion, or steam/heat
sheets (Hyldahl and Peake, 2020). This proposed framework
(Figure 1) may be individualized based on the proportionate
expense of mechanical and metabolic fatigue and whereby
increasing or decreasing tissue temperature beyond purely an
individualized approach, and when response to load/fatigue
monitoring is limited (Thorpe et al., 2017), periodizing strategies
to not only consolidate recovery across a training period but
also in an attempt to enhance adaptation is proposed. Indeed,
sequencing cooling strategies following endurance dominant
stress or heating strategies following strength-derived stress may
induce advantageous gene expression-related adaptations (Allan
et al., 2017; Cheng et al., 2017; Hyldahl and Peake, 2020). The
role of cooling and heating modalities should be chosen in
reflection of external physical demand and matched accordingly
to negate any contraindicative effect to adaptation interactions
(Peake et al., 2020).
There is a clear physical and mental stress induced by
exercise, competition, and acute injury. A unique physiological
and immunological cascade then ensues. Identifying the different
and proportionate mechanistic alterations is paramount in order
to mitigate against further reduced performance, injury, and
illness risk. Prioritizing sleep, rest, nutrition, hydration, and joint
range of motion during this phase is fundamental, thereafter,
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living | www.frontiersin.org 3September 2021 | Volume 3 | Article 707503
Thorpe Recovery Periodization: Cooling and Heating
FIGURE 1 | Practical framework to enhance recovery in athletes. Following external and internal load–stress response outcome measures, including, self-report
[soreness (DOMS), perceived fatigue, sleep quality]; heart rate-derived autonomic nervous system [heart rate variability (HRV), heart rate recovery (HRR), submaximal
heart rate (HRex)]; performance/neuromuscular functional assessment (force–time jump, eccentric, concentric, isometric protocols); and
biochemical/immunological/endocrine (creatine kinase, IL-6, C-reactive protein) may be used to distinguish limiting components of physiological fatigue systems
{structural damage [mechanical stress, direct insult, increases in temperature and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate oxidase (NOX), and mitochondrial
reactive oxygen species (ROS)] and metabolic fatigue [fluctuations in adenosine triphosphate (ATP), creatine phosphate, glycogen, pH, electrolytes, calcium, and
muscle potassium]} following exercise and injury. Following an initial fundamental strategy (optimal sleep, nutrition, hydration, and joint range of movement) the use of
cooling (topical icing/phase change material, cold water immersion, whole body cryotherapy) and heating (sauna, microwave diathermy water-perfused garments, hot
water immersion or steam/heat sheets) strategies may be used systematically and independently to match the stress to assist in alleviating structural damage
(secondary damage, soreness, swelling, and parasympathetic reactivation) and/or metabolic fatigue (muscle protein, IGF-1, satellite cells, soreness, swelling, fibrosis,
and gene expression), respectively.
recovery interventions should be considered that alleviate the
particular physiological stress incurred at any given time point
on the recovery continuum (Kellmann et al., 2018). Reducing
tissue temperature via cooling has shown to mediate secondary
damage derived from mechanical stress (Merrick, 2002), whereas
heating has been shown to enhance tissue temperature, blood
flow, and metabolism alleviating metabolic-associated fatigue
(McGorm et al., 2018). Identifying origins of fatigue via
the use of practical monitoring processes is recommended
for individualization of recovery strategy prescription (Thorpe
et al., 2017). In the absence of fatigue monitoring, a generic
approach in which reducing secondary damage via cooling as
the initial strategy followed by heating once the inflammatory
cascade diminishes is recommended because of the timeline and
functional detrimental properties of this process. The utilization
of cooling and heating to navigate and facilitate the associated
perturbations may be considered appropriate to accelerate
recovery via the different physiological demands in athletes. A
periodized, systematic recovery process matching appropriate
thermoregulatory strategies to associated physiological systems
should be considered as a framework to enhance recovery
in athletes.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and
has approved it for publication.
REFERENCES
Allan, R., Sharples, A. P., Close, G. L., Drust, B., Shepherd, S. O., Dutton, J., et al.
(2017). Postexercise cold water immersion modulates skeletal muscle PGC-1α
mRNA expression in immersed and nonimmersed limbs: evidence of systemic
regulation. J. Appl. Physiol. 123, 451–459. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00096.2017
Altarriba-Bartes, A., Peña, J., Vicens-Bordas, J., Casals, M., Peirau, X., and
Calleja-González, J. (2020). The use of recovery strategies by Spanish first
division soccer teams: a cross-sectional survey. Phys. Sportsmed. 18:19150.
doi: 10.1080/00913847.2020.1819150
Arbogast, S., and Reid, M. B. (2004). Oxidative Stress Oxidant activity in skeletal
muscle fibers is influenced by temperature, CO2level, and muscle-derived
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living | www.frontiersin.org 4September 2021 | Volume 3 | Article 707503
Thorpe Recovery Periodization: Cooling and Heating
nitric oxide. Am. J. Physiol. Regulat. Integrat. Comparat. Physiol. 298, 698–705.
doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00072.2004
Barnes, C., Archer, D. T., Hogg, B., Bush, M., and Bradley, P. S. (2014). The
evolution of physical and technical performance parameters in the English
Premier League. Int. J. Sports Med. 35, 1095–1100. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1375695
Barnett, A. (2006). Using recovery modalities between training
sessions in elite athletes: does it help? Sports Med. 36, 781–96.
doi: 10.2165/00007256-200636090-00005
Bengtsson, H., Ekstrand, J., and Hägglund, M. (2013). Muscle injury rates in
professional football increase with fixture congestion: an 11-year follow-up
of the UEFA champions league injury study. Br. J. Sports Med. 47, 743–747.
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092383
Bieuzen, F., Bleakley, C. M., and Costello, J. T. (2013). Contrast water therapy and
exercise induced muscle damage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS
ONE 8:e62356. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062356
Broatch, J. R., Petersen, A., and Bishop, D. J. (2014). Postexercise cold water
immersion benefits are not greater than the placebo effect. Med. Sci. Sports
Exerc. 46, 2139–2147. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000348
Brophy, R. H., Chiaia, T. A., Maschi, R., Dodson, C. C., Oh, L. S., Lyman, S., et al.
(2009). The core and hip in soccer athletes compared by gender. Int. J. Sports
Med. 30, 663–667. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1225328
Cheng, A. J., Willis, S. J., Zinner, C., Chaillou, T., and Ivarsson, N., Ørtenblad,
N., et al. (2017). Post-exercise recovery of contractile function and endurance
in humans and mice is accelerated by heating and slowed by cooling skeletal
muscle. J. Physiol. 595, 7413–7426. doi: 10.1113/JP274870
Cook, C. J., and Beaven, C. M. (2013). Individual perception of recovery is
related to subsequent sprint performance. Br. J. Sports Med. 47, 705–709.
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091647
Costello, J. T., Baker, P. R., Minett, G. M., Bieuzen, F., Stewart, I. B., and Bleakley, C.
(2016). Cochrane review: whole-body cryotherapy (extreme cold air exposure)
for preventing and treating muscle soreness after exercise in adults. J. Evid.
Based. Med. 9, 43–44. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12187
Davis, H. L., Alabed, S., and Chico, T. J. A. (2020). Effect of sports massage on
performance and recovery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open
Sport Exerc. Med. 6:e000614. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000614
Dupont, G., Nedelec, M., McCall, A., McCormack, D., Berthoin, S., and Wisløff, U.
(2010). Effect of 2 soccer matches in a week on physical performance and injury
rate. Am. J. Sports Med. 38, 1752–1758. doi: 10.1177/0363546510361236
Dupuy, O., Douzi, W., Theurot, D., Bosquet, L., and Dugu,é, B. (2018).
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. 9:403.
doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00403
Ekstrand, J., Spreco, A., and Davison, M. (2018). Elite football teams that do not
have a winter break lose on average 303 player-days more per season to injuries
than those teams that do: a comparison among 35 professional European teams.
Br. J. Sports Med. 53:9506. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099506
Eliakim, E., Morgulev, E., Lidor, R., and Meckel, Y. (2020). Estimation
of injury costs: financial damage of English Premier League teams’
underachievement due to injuries. BMJ Open Sport Exercise Med.
6:e000675.doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000675
Hägglund, M., Waldén, M., Magnusson, H., Kristenson, K., Bengtsson, H., and
Ekstrand, J. (2013). Injuries affect team performance negatively in professional
football: an 11-year follow-up of the UEFA champions league injury study. Br.
J. Sports Med. 47, 738–742. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092215
Halson, S. L. (2014). Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes.
Sports Med. 44(Suppl 2), S139–S147. doi: 10.1007/s40279-014-0253-z
Hill, J., Howatson, G., van Someren, K., Leeder, J., and Pedlar, C.
(2014). Compression garments and recovery from exercise-induced
muscle damage: a meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 48, 1340–1346.
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092456
Hoekstra, S. P., Bishop, N. C., Faulkner, S. H., Bailey, S. J., and Leicht, C. A.
(2008). Acute and chronic effects of hot water immersion on inflammation
and metabolism in sedentary, overweight adults. J. Appl. Physiol. 125.
doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00407.2018.-Regular
Howatson, G., and van Someren, K. A. (2008). The prevention and
treatment of exercise-induced muscle damage. Sports Med. 38, 483–503.
doi: 10.2165/00007256-200838060-00004
Hyldahl, R. D., and Peake, J. M. (2020). Combining cooling or heating
applications with exercise training to enhance performance and muscle
adaptations. J. Appl. Physiol. 129, 353–365. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00322.
2020
Jakeman, J. R., Macrae, R., and Eston, R. (2009). A single 10-min bout of cold-
water immersion therapy after strenuous plyometric exercise has no beneficial
effect on recovery from the symptoms of exercise-induced muscle damage.
Ergonomics 52, 456–460. doi: 10.1080/00140130802707733
Jones, D. A. (1996). High-and low-frequency fatigue revisited. Acta Physiol. Scand.
156, 265–270. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-201X.1996.192000.x
Kellmann, M. (2002). Enhancing Recovery: Preventing Underperformance in
Athletes. Available online at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=enandlr=
andid=Qp-WkTxvlvICandoi=fndandpg=PP9anddq=Kellmann$+$M$+
$ed.$+$Enhancing$+$Recovery:$+$Preventing$+$Underperformance$+
$in$+$Athletes.$+$Champaign,$+$IL:$+$Human$+$Kinetics%3B$+
$2002andots$=$qK_yAWdi9Oandsig$=$h9SurdzrK0BYpOyJ9i7yQuEwUr4
(accessed May 20, 2021).
Kellmann, M., Bertollo, M., Bosquet, L., Brink, M., Coutts, A. J., Duffield, R., et al.
(2018). Recovery and performance in sport: consensus statement. Int. J. Sports
Physiol. Perform. 13, 240–245. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2017-0759
Krustrup, P., Mohr, M., Steensberg, A., Bencke, J., Kjaer, M., and Bangsbo,
J. (2006). Muscle and blood metabolites during a soccer game:
implications for sprint performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 38, 1165–1174.
doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000222845.89262.cd
Kwiecien, S. Y., and McHugh, M. P. (2021). The cold truth: the role of cryotherapy
in the treatment of injury and recovery from exercise. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 1–18.
doi: 10.1007/s00421-021-04683-8
Kwiecien, S. Y., McHugh, M. P., Hicks, K. M., Keane, K. M., and Howatson,
G. (2020a). Prolonging the duration of cooling does not enhance
recovery following a marathon. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sport. 31:13822.
doi: 10.1111/sms.13822
Kwiecien, S. Y., McHugh, M. P., and Howatson, G. (2020b). Don’t lose your
cool with cryotherapy: the application of phase change material for prolonged
cooling in athletic recovery and beyond. Front. Sport. Act. living 2:118.
doi: 10.3389/fspor.2020.00118
Leeder, J., Gissane, C., van Someren, K., Gregson, W., and Howatson, G.
(2012). Cold water immersion and recovery from strenuous exercise: a
meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 46, 233–240. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2011-
090061
Malta, E. D. S., De Lira, F. S., Machado, F. A., Zago, A. S., Do Amaral, S. L.,
and Zagatto, A. M. (2019). Photobiomodulation by led does not alter muscle
recovery indicators and presents similar outcomes to cold-water immersion
and active recovery. Front. Physiol. 10:1948. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.
01948
Martínez-Guardado, I., Rojas-Valverde, D., Gutiérrez-Vargas, R., Ugalde Ramírez,
A., Carlos Gutiérrez-Vargas, J., and Sánchez-Ureña, B. (2020). Intermittent
pneumatic compression and cold water immersion effects on physiological and
perceptual recovery during multi-sports international championship. J. Funct.
Morphol. Kinesiol. Artic. 5:45. doi: 10.3390/jfmk5030045
Mawhinney, C., Low, D. A., Jones, H., Green, D. J., Costello, J. T., and
Gregson, W. (2017). Cold water mediates greater reductions in limb blood
flow than whole body cryotherapy. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 49, 1252–1260.
doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001223
McGorm, H., Roberts, L. A., Coombes, J. S., and Peake, J. M. (2018). Turning
up the heat: an evaluation of the evidence for heating to promote exercise
recovery, muscle rehabilitation and adaptation. Sport. Med. 48, 1311–1328.
doi: 10.1007/s40279-018-0876-6
Merrick, M. (2002). Secondary injury after musculoskeletal trauma: a review and
update. J. Athl. Train. 37:209.
Minett, G. M., and Costello, J. T. (2015). Specificity and context in post-
exercise recovery: it is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Front. Physiol. 6:130.
doi: 10.3389/fphys.2015.00130
Nadarajah, S., Ariyagunarajah, R., and Jong, E. D. (2018). Cryotherapy: not as cool
as it seems. J. Physiol. 596, 561–562. doi: 10.1113/JP275665
Nédélec, M., McCall, A., Carling, C., Legall, F., Berthoin, S., and Dupont,
G. (2012). Recovery in soccer: part I—post-match fatigue and time course
of recovery. Sports Med. 42, 997–1015. doi: 10.2165/11635270-000000000-
00000
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living | www.frontiersin.org 5September 2021 | Volume 3 | Article 707503
Thorpe Recovery Periodization: Cooling and Heating
Nédélec, M., McCall, A., Carling, C., Legall, F., Berthoin, S., and Dupont, G.
(2013). Recovery in soccer : part ii-recovery strategies. Sports Med. 43, 9–22.
doi: 10.1007/s40279-012-0002-0
Nimmo, M. A., and Ekblom, B. (2007). Fatigue and illness in athletes. J. Sports Sci.
25 Suppl 1, S93–102. doi: 10.1080/02640410701607379
Noakes, T. D. (2000). Physiological models to understand exercise fatigue and the
adaptations that predict or enhance athletic performance. Scand. J. Med. Sci.
Sport. 10, 123–145. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0838.2000.010003123.x
Peake, J. M., Markworth, J. F., Cumming, K. T., Aas, S. N., Roberts, L. A.,
Raastad, T., et al. (2020). The effects of cold water immersion and active
recovery on molecular factors that regulate growth and remodeling of skeletal
muscle after resistance exercise. Front. Physiol. 11:737. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.
00737
Petersen, A. C., and Fyfe, J. J. (2021). Post-exercise cold water immersion
effects on physiological adaptations to resistance training and the underlying
mechanisms in skeletal muscle: a narrative review. Front. Sport. Act. Living
3:291. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.660291
Pooley, S., Spendiff, O., Allen, M., and Moir, H. J. (2020). Comparative
efficacy of active recovery and cold water immersion as post-match
recovery interventions in elite youth soccer. J. Sports Sci. 38, 1423–1431.
doi: 10.1080/02640414.2019.1660448
Powers, S. K., and Jackson, M. J. (2008). Exercise-induced oxidative stress:
cellular mechanisms and impact on muscle force production. Physiol. Rev. 88,
1243–1276. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00031.2007
Pyne, D. B., and Martin, D. T. (2011). “Fatigue Insights from individual and team
sports,” in Regulation of Fatigue in Exercise, ed F. E. Marino (New York, NY:
Nova Science).
Seshadri, D. R., Thom, M. L., Harlow, E. R., Drummond, C. K., and Voos, J. E.
(2021). Case report: return to sport following the COVID-19 lockdown and its
impact on injury rates in the german soccer league. Front. Sport. Act. Living
3:604226. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.604226
Skorski, S., Schimpchen, J., Pfeiffer, M., Ferrauti, A., Kellmann, M., and Meyer, T.
(2020). Effects of postexercise sauna bathing on recovery of swim performance.
Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 15, 934–940. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2019-
0333
Stanley, J., Buchheit, M., Peake, J. M., and Kondo, N. (2012). The effect of post-
exercise hydrotherapy on subsequent exercise performance and heart rate
variability. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 112, 951–961. doi: 10.1007/s00421-011-2052-7
Tee, J. C., Bosch, A. N., and Lambert, M. I. (2007). Metabolic
consequences of exercise-induced muscle damage. Sport. Med. 37,
827–836. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200737100-00001
Thorpe, R. T., Atkinson, G., Drust, B., and Gregson, W. (2017). Monitoring fatigue
status in elite team sport athletes: implications for practice. Int. J. Sports Physiol.
Perform. 12, 1–25. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0434
Wilson, L. J., Cockburn, E., Paice, K., Sinclair, S., Faki, T., Hills, F. A., et al. (2018).
Recovery following a marathon: a comparison of cold water immersion, whole
body cryotherapy and a placebo control. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 118, 153–163.
doi: 10.1007/s00421-017-3757-z
Conflict of Interest: The author declares that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of
the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Copyright © 2021 Thorpe. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the
copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal
is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living | www.frontiersin.org 6September 2021 | Volume 3 | Article 707503