4.6 Article

Effects of sports massage and intermittent cold-water immersion on recovery from matches by basketball players

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
Volume 31, Issue 1, Pages 11-19

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2012.719241

Keywords

fatigue perception; countermovement jump; repeated sprint ability; gender

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of intermittent cold-water immersion and massage on perceptual and performance markers of recovery by basketball players after competitive matches. Eight men (age 23 +/- 3 years; stature 190.5 +/- 8.9 cm; body mass 90.3 +/- 9.6 kg; body fat 12.8 +/- 4.8%) and eight women (age 22 +/- 2 years; stature 179.0 +/- 8.5 cm; body mass 77.6 +/- 9.2 kg; body fat 22.5 +/- 6.6%) basketball players participated. Massage, cold-water immersion or control were applied immediately after competitive matches, followed by assessments of perceptual measures of recovery and physical performance, countermovement jump and repeated-sprint ability 24 h after intervention. There was lower perception of fatigue overall and in the legs immediately after the massage and cold-water immersion condition (P < 0.001; = 0.91). Furthermore, women had a lower perception of fatigue in cold-water immersion than massage at any testing time (P < 0.001; = 0.37). Jump performance was greater after cold-water immersion than the control condition (P = 0.037, = 0.37). There was no effect of any of the recovery interventions on repeated-sprint measures (P at best 0.067, at best 0.68). The results suggest that both massage and cold-water immersion improve perceptual measures of recovery. Furthermore, cold-water immersion improves jump performance although neither such immersion nor massage had an effect on repeated-sprint ability. This suggests that, overall, cold-water immersion is more useful than massage in the recovery from basketball matches, especially in women.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available