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.
| Originalsprache | Englisch |
|---|---|
| Seiten (von - bis) | 120-130 |
| Seitenumfang | 11 |
| Fachzeitschrift | International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance |
| Jahrgang | 20 |
| Ausgabenummer | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publikationsstatus | Veröffentlicht - 1 Jan. 2025 |
Fördermittel
Sincere gratitude is extended to all survey respondents, with special acknowledgement to Rink Hooijsma for assisting in inviting potential participants. Funding: This work was supported by the China Scholarship Council under Grant CSC NO. 202008440321 to Li. Ethics Approval: Medical Ethics Review Board of the University Medical Center Groningen (Research Registration number: 202200105). Consent to Participate: Yes. Author Contributions: Drafting the initial manuscript and data interpretation: Li. Conceived and designed the study: Li, Kempe. Editing and revising the manuscript: Kemp, Lemmink. Final approval of the manuscript: All authors.
ÖFOS 2012
- 303030 Trainingswissenschaft