Comparative Effectiveness of Active Recovery and Static Stretching During Post-Exercise Recovery in Elite Youth Basketball

• Published in: Research quarterly for exercise and sport Vol. 95; no. 1; pp. 272 - 280
• Main Authors: Pernigoni, Marco, Calleja-González, Julio, Lukonaitienė, Inga, Tessitore, Antonio, Stanislovaitienė, Jūratė, Kamarauskas, Paulius, Conte, Daniele
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Routledge 02.01.2024
• Subjects: Cool-down; fatigue; heart rate variability; salivary biomarkers; team sports; team sports; fatigue; performance; salivary biomarkers; Cool-down; heart rate variability
• ISSN: 0270-1367; 2168-3824; 2168-3824
• DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2023.2195457

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of active recovery (AR) versus static stretching (SS) during post-exercise recovery in basketball. Methods: Using a counterbalanced crossover design, 17 elite youth male players completed two 90-min training sessions, followed by either AR or SS. Differences in jump height (CMJ), heart rate variability (Ln-rMSSD), muscle soreness (VAS), perceived recovery (TQR) and hormonal biomarkers (cortisol, testosterone, testosterone:cortisol ratio) between interventions were assessed at pre-session, post-session (except hormonal biomarkers), post-recovery and 24 h post-session. Differences in Ln-rMSSD were additionally assessed upon awakening on training day, and the following morning. Results: No significant differences were found between interventions at corresponding time points (p > .05). However, the within-intervention time course of recovery differed, as CMJ values were lower at post-recovery, compared with all other time points, in SS only (p < .05, effect size [ES] moderate-to-very large). Additionally, Ln-rMSSD values failed to return to baseline at post-recovery in AR only (p < .05, ES large-to-very large). Similarly, TQR scores were impaired at post-session and post-recovery in AR only (p < .05, ES moderate-to-large). No differences were reported for the remaining variables (p > .05). Conclusion: Differences between AR and SS were probably due to short-term phenomena, indicating that neither strategy was likely superior for improving recovery in the longer term. Overall, neither strategy seemed to significantly improve post-exercise recovery.