Department of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Universiteitssingel 50, 6229 ER, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Institute of Sport Studies, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Sports Med. 2018 Jul;48(7):1575-1595. doi: 10.1007/s40279-018-0916-2.
It is widely believed that an active cool-down is more effective for promoting post-exercise recovery than a passive cool-down involving no activity. However, research on this topic has never been synthesized and it therefore remains largely unknown whether this belief is correct. This review compares the effects of various types of active cool-downs with passive cool-downs on sports performance, injuries, long-term adaptive responses, and psychophysiological markers of post-exercise recovery. An active cool-down is largely ineffective with respect to enhancing same-day and next-day(s) sports performance, but some beneficial effects on next-day(s) performance have been reported. Active cool-downs do not appear to prevent injuries, and preliminary evidence suggests that performing an active cool-down on a regular basis does not attenuate the long-term adaptive response. Active cool-downs accelerate recovery of lactate in blood, but not necessarily in muscle tissue. Performing active cool-downs may partially prevent immune system depression and promote faster recovery of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. However, it is unknown whether this reduces the likelihood of post-exercise illnesses, syncope, and cardiovascular complications. Most evidence indicates that active cool-downs do not significantly reduce muscle soreness, or improve the recovery of indirect markers of muscle damage, neuromuscular contractile properties, musculotendinous stiffness, range of motion, systemic hormonal concentrations, or measures of psychological recovery. It can also interfere with muscle glycogen resynthesis. In summary, based on the empirical evidence currently available, active cool-downs are largely ineffective for improving most psychophysiological markers of post-exercise recovery, but may nevertheless offer some benefits compared with a passive cool-down.
人们普遍认为,与不活动的被动冷却相比,主动冷却更能促进运动后的恢复。然而,关于这个主题的研究从未被综合过,因此,人们仍然很大程度上不知道这种观点是否正确。本综述比较了各种主动冷却和被动冷却对运动表现、损伤、长期适应反应以及运动后恢复的心理生理标志物的影响。主动冷却在提高当天和次日的运动表现方面效果不大,但有研究报告称其对次日的运动表现有一些有益的影响。主动冷却似乎并不能预防损伤,初步证据表明,定期进行主动冷却不会减弱长期适应反应。主动冷却可加速血液中乳酸的恢复,但不一定能加速肌肉组织中乳酸的恢复。进行主动冷却可能部分预防免疫系统抑制,并促进心血管和呼吸系统更快恢复。然而,目前尚不清楚这是否会降低运动后疾病、晕厥和心血管并发症的发生几率。大多数证据表明,主动冷却不会显著减少肌肉酸痛,或改善肌肉损伤的间接标志物、肌肉收缩性能、肌腱硬度、运动范围、全身激素浓度或心理恢复的测量结果。它还可能干扰肌肉糖原的再合成。总之,根据目前现有的经验证据,主动冷却在改善大多数运动后恢复的心理生理标志物方面效果不大,但与被动冷却相比,可能仍有一些益处。