Recovery Strategies in Endurance Sports: A Survey in Coaches and Athletes.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 PHYSIOLOGY
Shuting Li, Matthias Kempe, Koen A P M Lemmink
{"title":"Recovery Strategies in Endurance Sports: A Survey in Coaches and Athletes.","authors":"Shuting Li, Matthias Kempe, Koen A P M Lemmink","doi":"10.1123/ijspp.2024-0032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study explored endurance athletes' and coaches' views on recovery strategies, focusing on their use across competition levels, perceived importance and effectiveness, and common barriers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Endurance athletes (26.6% international, 35.7% national, 28.7% regional, and 9.1% other levels; mean experience 10.04 [7.84] y, n = 143) and coaches (mean experience 17.45 [12.44] y, n = 20) completed an online survey on frequency of usage, perceived importance, effectiveness, and common barriers of 25 recovery strategies. Data were coded and analyzed thematically. A Fisher exact test (P < .05) was conducted on 5-point Likert-scale responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Predominant strategies among athletes were hydration, hot showers, and carbohydrate (mean scores 4.62 [0.60], 4.32 [0.82], and 4.17 [0.87]). Only antioxidants showed significant variation in use across levels (P = .033). Coaches favored warm-down/cooling (4.56 [0.62]), hydration (4.41 [0.80]), and extra protein (4.12 [0.70]). Both groups ranked hydration as most important and effective. Athletes ranked extra protein and warm-down/cooling second and third, while coaches considered extra sleep/naps, warm-down/cooling, and extra protein equally important. Barriers of both populations included insufficient time (14.41%), limited knowledge (13.72%), lack of resources (12.63%), and skepticism regarding benefits and effectiveness (12.63%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Athletes show no significant differences in recovery choices based on competitive level, except for antioxidants. Coaches and athletes have partially different views on effective recovery. Furthermore, a lack of time, as well as a lack of (shared) knowledge and education, hinders the effective implementation of recovery strategies for athletes.</p>","PeriodicalId":14295,"journal":{"name":"International journal of sports physiology and performance","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of sports physiology and performance","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2024-0032","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study explored endurance athletes' and coaches' views on recovery strategies, focusing on their use across competition levels, perceived importance and effectiveness, and common barriers.

Methods: Endurance athletes (26.6% international, 35.7% national, 28.7% regional, and 9.1% other levels; mean experience 10.04 [7.84] y, n = 143) and coaches (mean experience 17.45 [12.44] y, n = 20) completed an online survey on frequency of usage, perceived importance, effectiveness, and common barriers of 25 recovery strategies. Data were coded and analyzed thematically. A Fisher exact test (P < .05) was conducted on 5-point Likert-scale responses.

Results: Predominant strategies among athletes were hydration, hot showers, and carbohydrate (mean scores 4.62 [0.60], 4.32 [0.82], and 4.17 [0.87]). Only antioxidants showed significant variation in use across levels (P = .033). Coaches favored warm-down/cooling (4.56 [0.62]), hydration (4.41 [0.80]), and extra protein (4.12 [0.70]). Both groups ranked hydration as most important and effective. Athletes ranked extra protein and warm-down/cooling second and third, while coaches considered extra sleep/naps, warm-down/cooling, and extra protein equally important. Barriers of both populations included insufficient time (14.41%), limited knowledge (13.72%), lack of resources (12.63%), and skepticism regarding benefits and effectiveness (12.63%).

Conclusions: Athletes show no significant differences in recovery choices based on competitive level, except for antioxidants. Coaches and athletes have partially different views on effective recovery. Furthermore, a lack of time, as well as a lack of (shared) knowledge and education, hinders the effective implementation of recovery strategies for athletes.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
12.10%
发文量
199
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (IJSPP) focuses on sport physiology and performance and is dedicated to advancing the knowledge of sport and exercise physiologists, sport-performance researchers, and other sport scientists. The journal publishes authoritative peer-reviewed research in sport physiology and related disciplines, with an emphasis on work having direct practical applications in enhancing sport performance in sport physiology and related disciplines. IJSPP publishes 10 issues per year: January, February, March, April, May, July, August, September, October, and November.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信