Deloading Practices in Strength and Physique

Sports: A Cross-Sectional Survey

David Rogerson (  [email protected] )
Sheffield Hallam University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4799-9865
David Nolan
Dublin City University
Patroklos Androulas-Korakakis
Lehman College
Velu Immonen
Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences
Milo Wolf
Southampton Solent University
Lee Bell
Sheffield Hallam University

Research Article

Keywords: Deloading, Strength Training, Strength Sports, Bodybuilding

Posted Date: November 16th, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3468381/v1

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Read Full License

Page 1/26
Abstract
Background: This study explored the deloading practices of competitive strength and physique athletes. A
55-item anonymised web-based survey was distributed to a convenience-based, cross-sectional sample of
competitive strength and physique athletes (n = 246; age = 29.5 ± 8.6 years) who had 8.2 ± 6.2 years of
resistance training and 3.8 ± 3.1 years of competition experience.

Results: All athletes deloaded within training with energy and fatigue management being the main
reasons to do so. The typical duration of a deload was 6.4 ± 1.8 days, integrated into the training
programme every 5.8 ± 3.4 weeks. Deloading was undertaken using a proactive, pre-planned strategy (or in
combination with an autoregulated approach) and undertaken when performance stalled or during periods
of increased muscle soreness or joint aches. Athletes reported that training volume would decrease
(through a reduction in both repetitions per set and sets per week), but training frequency would remain
unchanged during deloads. Additionally, athletes reported that training intensity (load lifted) would
decrease, and effort would be reduced (facilitated through an increase in repetitions in reserve). Athletes
would generally maintain the same exercise selection during deloading. For athletes that supplemented
deloading with additional recovery modalities (n = 118; 48%), the most reported strategies were massage,
static stretching and foam rolling. Conclusion: Results from this research might assist strength and
physique athletes and coaches to plan their deloading. Future research should empirically investigate the
findings from this study to further evaluate the potential utility of deloading in strength and physique
sports.

1 Background
Athletes and recreational trainees participate in resistance exercise to enhance their athletic potential and
to improve their musculature and appearance [1, 2]. Whilst strength training is an important part of an
athlete’s physical preparation, strength sports such as Powerlifting, Weightlifting and Strongman/woman
competitions are globalised sports where athletes compete to determine who is the strongest within the
parameters of their lifts and/or events [3–5]. Similarly, within physique sports such as bodybuilding,
individuals participate in competitions to see who is the most symmetrical, muscular, and conditioned [6],
utilising resistance training to build and refine their physiques [7]. Such activities can be loosely
categorised as strength and physique sports, and each share the need for participants to engage with
resistance training to be competitive. The development of strength requires the manipulation of training
variables such as volume, frequency, and intensity to elicit adaptive responses within the neuromuscular
system that enhance volitional force production, such as increased intramuscular and intermuscular
coordination and the disinhibition of inhibitory mechanisms [8–10]. Similarly, resistance training provokes
adaptive responses within skeletal muscle that increase cross-sectional area incrementally as muscle
protein accretion accumulates to observable levels, typically evident after 6 or more weeks of training [11].
This is despite hypertrophic responses being immediate upon stimulation through resistance exercise,
however [12, 13]. In all instances, the continued development of such neural and morphological

Page 2/26
adaptations requires exercise to be progressive, which over time, might require that the training becomes
more challenging and sophisticated as the athlete becomes better conditioned to its demands [14].

The strategic and phasic planning of training around key competitive activities is the hallmark of
periodisation, where training is organised in such a way as to elicit adaptive responses in either a
sequential or parallel manner, oftentimes within a cyclical format [15]. Typically, with periodised training,
these cycles are organised over longer (macro), medium (meso) and shorter (micro) timeframes and with
clear purpose in relation to task and athlete-specific needs and competitive schedules [15]. In order for
training to be stimulatory, it needs to be of sufficient magnitude to elicit an adaptive response [14],
however fatigue is perhaps also an important byproduct of strenuous training [16], and a well thought out,
periodised programme will often make use of unloading phases and cycles to dissipate fatigue and allow
for training to continue without maladaptation, or for the cumulative effects of consistent training to be
realised within competition [17]. It should be noted, however, that evidence for accumulated fatigue within
resistance training is surprisingly indistinct at this time, and that accumulated ‘fatigue’ might in fact be
muscle damage accrued from training, which shares similar physiological characteristics of delayed
appearance and reduced force production [16]. Nonetheless, without sufficient recuperation, performance
can become affected by non-functional overreaching [18], and recovery periods are required to reduce the
negative consequences of consistent, progressive training. Periods of reduced training are often referred to
as ‘peaking’ strategies when preparing for competition, or ‘unloading’ or ‘deloading’ cycles or phases
within day-to-day training [19]. Despite almost universal usage within practice, research exploring
deloading within strength and physique sports is surprisingly sparse, and it appears that previous
discussion has even used the terms deloading and tapering interchangeably [20], suggesting that
terminological confusion might also coexist alongside a lack of data within the literature.

Despite this, recent work by our team explored coaches’ perceptions and experiences of deloading within
strength and physique sports through qualitative methods, highlighting that coaches strategically utilised
deloading to manage fatigue and facilitate longer-term progression [21]. Interestingly, our results also
revealed that practises varied considerably, with periods of reduced volume, intensity of effort, and
exercise mode and configuration programmed every 4–6 weeks for a duration of 5–7 days in an
individualised manner, adapted to the needs and context of athletes. Indeed, data demonstrates that
individuals can respond differently to resistance training, and that training might therefore need to be
individualised for it to be optimal [22]. It stands to reason therefore that approaches taken to strategically
deload from training might also require some degree of personalisation too. Whilst we explored coaches'
practices previously, we did not investigate the practices of competitive strength and physique athletes per
se, who might adopt nuanced and unique approaches and have different experiences and methods than
coaches. The investigation of the deloading approaches taken by individual athletes who participate in
resistance training sports might be warranted, therefore, to gain a deeper understanding of its usage
within practice.

Given that deloading is an under researched but almost ubiquitous aspect of strength and physique
athlete training, it is important to understand current practices and add to the existing – but sparse –

Page 3/26
evidence in this area. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to (1), investigate the deloading practices
of strength and physique athletes; and (2), develop an understanding of the rationale used by such
athletes when implementing deloading into their training. It was anticipated that the outcomes of this
work would be of interest to researchers, athletes, and coaches alike, who all might need to programme
deloading within training programmes and interventions.

2 Methods
2.1 Survey Development
Following institutional ethical approval (ER38311849), an open, anonymous, cross-sectional survey was
developed using Typeform (Typeform SL, Barcelona, Spain), a secure online software service that
specialises in online surveys. The survey was created collaboratively by the research team. Questions were
developed pragmatically and guided by previous research [21]. To enhance validity and to ensure all
relevant questions were captured, all members of the research team evaluated and provided feedback on
the quality, accuracy, and scope of the survey in relation to the aims of the study. Each member of the
research team had either coached or participated in strength and physique sports and programmed
strength training alongside undertaking research in the field and were well placed to review, critique, and
develop the questions in this way. The survey was then piloted with participants who shared the same
characteristics as the inclusion criteria, to establish face validity and inform further revisions, if necessary
[23]. Based on the resulting feedback, the survey was then refined for readability and clarity. Before
making the survey available for completion by participants, all members of the research team then
independently tested the survey interface to ensure appropriate useability. This process of development,
pre-testing, piloting, and refinement helped to quality assure the survey prior to its administration and
reflects recommended processes as suggested elsewhere [24].

The final version of the survey was available online (https://deload.survey) between November 2021 and
March 2022. The final survey consisted of 55 questions and was presented as multiple-choice or open-
format responses based on the type of question. The survey contained adaptive questioning with several
questions conditionally displayed based on responses to previous items. More specifically, sport-specific
questions were displayed based on selected sport (i.e., strength or physique sport), and clarifying
questions were displayed to participants that indicated the use of nutritional changes, deload enjoyment,
and training breaks. To reduce the risk of multiple entries from the same participant, individuals were
assigned a unique user identification number based on their internet protocol (IP) address and given an
opportunity to review and change their answers throughout the completion of the survey. No duplicate
responses were detected.
2.2 Sample selection and recruitment
A voluntary convenience sample of strength and physique athletes was recruited through social media
and emails to industry experts/gatekeepers involved in relevant sports across the globe. Participants were
eligible if they currently used deloads as part of their overall training programme and competed in strength
Page 4/26
or physique sports. A recruitment poster was designed to outline the purpose of the research, eligibility
criteria and a direct link to the website and survey (via QR code).

The sampling criteria specified that participants were ≥ 18 years of age and have competed in either a
strength or physique sport and currently use deloading as part of their overall training programme. No
restriction was placed on the level of competition (ie, club to international level athletes) or federation. For
the purposes of this research, eligible sports were categorised as strength sports (weightlifting,
powerlifting and strongman) and physique sports (bodybuilding in all forms). The choice of sports was
determined using previous research on deloading practices in strength and physique sports [21]. To
provide sufficient clarity regarding deloading but to avoid acquiesce bias, the term “deloading” was
broadly defined as involvement in any training that involved a planned reduction in training stress such as
“light weeks” or “recovery weeks”.
2.3 Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis of the anonymised data was conducted using the Tidyverse package in R statistical
software (version 4.0.5). Mean and SD demographic data were calculated for the whole participant group,
as well as subgroups of sex, age, resistance exercise training experience, and competition
experience/level. Deloading characteristics were categorised for the whole group and according to the
participants’ sport.

3 Results
3.1 Demographic and training characteristics
Thirty-two participants were excluded due to not meeting the inclusion criteria (18 had not used deloads
and 14 had previously used deloads in their training, but not currently). The responses of 246 athletes
were included in the analysis. The mean and SD age of participants was 29.5 ± 8.6 years. One-hundred
and eighty-one (73.6%) were male and 65 (26.4%) were female. One hundred and fifty-six (63.4%) athletes
were powerlifters; 9 (3.7%) were weightlifters; 9 (3.7%) were strongman athletes; 45 (18.3%) were physique
athletes and 27 (11.0%) were classified as mixed athletes (involved in > 1 of the sports mentioned above).
On average, athletes had 8.2 ± 6.2 years of resistance exercise training experience and had competed in
their respective strength or physique sport for 3.8 ± 3.2 years. Competition level included 47 (19.1%)
athletes who competed at an international level, 84 (34.1%) at a national level, 36 (14.6%) at a regional
level, and 79 (32.1%) who competed at a state/local level. Most athletes reported having a coach (54.1%),
with the remainder being self-coached (45.9%). A summary of demographic and training characteristics
for all athletes is presented in Table 1.

Page 5/26
 Table 1
Demographics and training characteristics
All Powerlifting Weightlifting Strongman/woman Physique Mixed
athletes (n = 9; 3.7%)
(n = 156; (n = 9; 3.7%) (n = 45; (n = 27;
(n = 63.4%) 18.3%) 11.0%)
246)

Demographics

Sex M = 181 M = 110 M=8 M = 8 (88.9%) M = 31 M = 24

(73.6%) (70.5%) (88.9%) (68.9%) (88.9%)
(M = male; F F = 1 (11.1%)
= female) F = 65 F = 46 F=1 F = 14 F=3
(26.4%) (29.5%) (11.1%) (31.1%) (11.1%)

Age (Years) 29.5 ± 29.1 ± 9.3 26.9 ± 4.4 28.4 ± 4.1 30.0 ± 32.5 ±
(Mean ± SD) 8.6 7.0 8.9

Coached

Coached 113 91 (58.3%) 4 (44.4%) 4 (44.4%) 23 11

(45.9%) (51.1%) (40.7%)

Self- 133 65 (41.7%) 5 (55.6%) 5 (55.6%) 22 16

coached (54.1%) (48.9%) (59.3%)

Training characteristics

Resistance 8.2 ± 7.1 ± 5.3 9.8 ± 5.1 8.8 ± 4.4 9.3 ± 6.3 12.3 ±
exercise 6.2 9.2
training
experience
(Years)
(Mean ± SD)

Competition 3.8 ± 3.5 ± 2.5 5.2 ± 3.1 3.3 ± 2.3 4.0 ± 4.2 4.9 ±
experience 3.2 4.6
(Years)
(Mean ± SD)

Competition level

International 47 28 (17.9%) - 4 (44.4%) 9 6

(n) (19.1%) (20.0%) (22.2%)

National (n) 84 50 (32.1%) 5 (55.6%) 2 (22.3%) 17 10

(34.1%) (37.8%) (37.0%)

Regional (n) 36 27 (17.3%) 1 (11.1%) - 5 3

(14.6%) (11.1%) (11.1%)

State / local 79 51 (32.7%) 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) 14 8

(n) (32.1%) (31.1%) (29.6%)

**Table 1. Demographic and training characteristics**

3.2 Reasons for implementing deloading.
Page 6/26
All included athletes (n = 246) indicated they currently use deloading as part of their overall training
programme. A summary of responses is presented in Table 2. The most common reasons for
implementing deloading reported by athletes were to decrease fatigue (92.3%), prepare for a change in
training (e.g., between training blocks) (64.6%), and to improve performance (59.8%). Most athletes
(65.0%) stated that they felt they could progress in their training without deloading.

Table 2
Reasons for deloading
Responses (n = 246)

“Do you think you could progress without deloads?”

Yes 160 (65.0%)

No 86 (35.0%)

“Why do you use deloads?”

Decrease fatigue 227 (92.3%)

Improve performance 147 (59.8%)

Increase muscle mass 19 (7.7%)

Maintain performance and/or muscle mass 52 (21.1%)

Prepare for a change in training (e.g., between training blocks) 159 (64.6%)

Psychological reasons 119 (48.4%)

Injury prevention 119 (48.4%)

Injury management 80 (32.5%)

To preserve energy for other things (e.g., non-training life stressors) 46 (18.7%)

To prepare for a competition 126 (51.2%)

Sleep disruption 25 (10.2%)

**Table 2. Reasons for implementing deloading**

3.3 Duration and frequency of deloading
Athletes (n = 246) stated that deloading would be undertaken every 5.8 ± 3.4 weeks. The typical deload
was 6.4 ± 1.8 days in duration. A summary of deloading planning characteristics is presented in Table 3.

Page 7/26
 Table 3
Duration and frequency of deloading
Responses (n = 246)

Periodicity and duration

How often do you take deloads (Weeks) 5.8 ± 3.4

How long do you usually deload for? (Days) 6.4 ± 3.4

**Table 3. Deload planning characteristics**

3.4 When deloading is implemented
Athletes (n = 246) provided information related to when they chose to deload. A summary of responses is
presented in Table 4. Many participants (47.2%) planned their deloads proactively, using a pre-planned
approach compared to an autoregulated approach (13.4%). Some athletes used a combination of reactive
and proactive strategies (39.4%). The main reasons for implementing deloading were when it said so on
the programme (65.4%), when feeling beat up (muscle soreness, joint aches, or pain) (62.6%) and when
performance stalled or decreased (54.1%). “Other” (0.8%) reasons for deloading were related to increased
fatigue.

Page 8/26
 Table 4
When deloading is implemented
Responses (n =
246)

“When do you deload?”

Pre-planned 116 (47.2%)

Reactively (autoregulation) 33 (13.4%)

Both 97 (39.4%)

“When do you use deloads?”

When performance stalls or decreases 113 (54.1%)

When feeling beat up (muscle soreness, joint aches, or pain) 154 (62.6%)

When I don't feel like training 36 (14.6%)

When previous injuries start acting up 77 (31.3%)

When dealing with high levels of external stress (e.g., work, family, relationships, 75 (30.5%)
etc.)

When it says so on the programme 161 (65.4%)

When I'm on vacation, out of town etc. 60 (24.4%)

Other 2 (0.8%)

**Table 4. When deloading is implemented**

3.5 Changes in training frequency and volume during
deloading
Athletes (n = 246) reported how they would adapt training frequency and volume during a period of
deloading. A summary of responses is presented in Table 5. Most participants reported that the number of
weekly training sessions would not change (63.0%) or would decrease (32.9%) during deloading. Similarly,
the frequency of competition lifts or main multi-joint exercises would also remain unchanged (61.0%) or
decrease (32.9%). “Other” (1.2%) reasons suggested that the frequency of competition lifts might increase
or decrease depending on the specific circumstances of the athlete. Most athletes stated that the number
of weekly sets would decrease (78.9%) or remain unchanged (17.9%), and that the number of repetitions
performed within each set would also likely decrease (52.8%) or remain the same (30.9%).

Page 9/26
 Table 5
Changes in training frequency and volume during deloading
Responses (n = 246)

Changes in weekly training sessions (training frequency)

Increase 10 (4.1%)

Decrease 81 (32.9%)

No change 155 (63.0%)

Other 0 (0.0%)

Changes in frequency of competition lifts or main multi-joint exercises

Increase 12 (4.9%)

Decrease 81 (32.9%)

No change 150 (61.0%)

Other 3 (1.2%)

Changes in weekly sets

Increase 8 (3.2%)

Decrease 194 (78.9%)

No change 44 (17.9%)

Other 0 (0.0%)

Changes in repetitions per set

Increase 34 (13.8%)

Decrease 130 (52.8%)

No change 76 (30.9%)

Other 6 (2.4%)

**Table 5. Changes in training frequency and volume during deloading**

3.6 Changes in intensity of effort during deloading
Athletes (n = 246) reported alterations in the intensity of effort during periods of deloading (Table 6).
Athletes stated that there would be a decrease in training intensity for both multi-joint exercises (83.7%)
and single-joint exercises (60.2%). Some athletes stated that training intensity would remain unchanged
for multi-joint (11.4%) and single-joint (33.3%) exercises. Most athletes reported a decrease in effort
and/or proximity to failure for both multi-joint (84.9%) and single-joint (61.8%) exercises.

Page 10/26
 Table 6
Changes in intensity of effort during deloading
Responses (n = 246)

Changes in intensity (load lifted) for multi-joint exercises

Increase 8 (3.3%)

Decrease 206 (83.7%)

No change 28 (11.4%)

Other 4 (1.6%)

Changes in intensity (load lifted) for single-joint exercises)

Increase 11 (4.5%)

Decrease 148 (60.2%)

No change 82 (33.3%)

Other 5 (2.0%)

Changes in effort/proximity to failure (e.g., RPE/RIR) for working sets for multi-joint exercises

Increase 20 (8.2%)

Decrease 208 (84.9%)

No change 15 (6.1%)

Other 2 (0.8%)

Changes in effort/proximity to failure (e.g., RPE/RIR) for working sets for single-joint exercises

Increase 21 (8.5%)

Decrease 152 (61.8%)

No change 66 (26.8%)

Other 7 (2.8%)

**Table 6. Changes in intensity of effort during deloading**

3.7 Changes in exercise selection and execution during
deloading
Athletes (n = 246) reported how they would adapt exercise selection and execution during deloading. A
summary of responses can be found in Table 7. For most athletes, the number of multi-joint exercises
would remain unchanged (70.3%) or decrease (26.4%). Similar findings were reported for single-joint
exercises, which would also remain consistent (64.2%) or decrease (29.3%) relative to the normal training

Page 11/26
programme. Athletes reported that the range of motion for exercises performed during the deload would
not change. This was reported for both multi-joint (89.0%) and single-joint exercises (90.7%). Where
“other” was reported, participants highlighted that “it depends”, but provided no additional information.

Table 7
Changes in exercise selection and execution during
deloading
Responses (n = 246)

Changes in number of multi-joint exercises performed?

Increase 6 (2.4%)

Decrease 65 (26.4%)

No change 173 (70.3%)

Other 2 (0.8%)

Changes in number of single-joint exercises performed?

Increase 15 (6.1%)

Decrease 72 (29.3%)

No change 158 (64.2%)

Other 1 (0.4%)

Changes in range of motion for multi-joint exercises

Increase 7 (2.8%)

Decrease 18 (7.3%)

No change 219 (89.0%)

Other 2 (0.8%)

Changes in range of motion for single-joint exercises

Increase 6 (2.4%)

Decrease 14 (5.7%)

No change 223 (90.7%)

Other 3 (1.2%)

**Table 7. Changes in exercise selection and execution during deloading**

3.8 Resumption of training following deloading

Page 12/26
Athletes (n = 246) reported how they would resume their training following a deload. A summary of
responses is presented in Table 8. Most athletes states that they would begin a new training block (67.9%),
progressively make training hard again (55.3%) or adjust their training based on results from the previous
block (50.0%).

Table 8
Resumption of training following deloading
Responses (n = 246)

Progressively make training hard again 136 (55.3%)

Repeat the week prior to the deload 11 (4.5%)

Repeat the week prior to the deload but with increased volume and/or intensity 11 (4.5%)

Repeat the first week of the previous block 17 (6.9%)

Adjust training based on how the previous block went 123 (50.0%)

No plan, just commencing hard training again 11 (4.5%)

‘PR’attempt 18 (7.3%)

Start a new training block 167 (67.9%)

Start a new programme 73 (29.7%)

**Table 8. Resumption of training following deloading**

3.9 Assessing the success of deloading
Athletes (n = 246) reported what they considered to be an effective deload. A summary of responses is in
Table 9. Athletes considered a reduction in fatigue (87.8%), increased training motivation (69.5%), and
performance improvement (67.5%) to be factors by which a successful deload could be measured.
Conversely, an ineffective deload could be the result of continued fatigue (32.5%), a deload that was too
short in duration (32.5%), or non-training factors such as life/work circumstances.

Page 13/26
 Table 9
Assessing the success of the deload
Responses (n = 246)

“How would you know if your deload has been effective?”

Fatigue dissipates 216 (87.8%)

Performance increases 166 (67.5%)

Aches and pains ease 165 (67.1%)

Training motivation increases 171 (69.5%)

I don’t know 5 (2.0%)

“What caused a deload to fail to achieve its purpose?”

Trained too light 53 (21.5%)

Trained too heavy 124 (50.4%)

Volume was too high 110 (44.7%)

Volume was too low 28 (11.4%)

The deload was too short 80 (32.5%)

The deload was too long 48 (19.5%)

Fatigue was too high (e.g., overtraining) 80 (32.5%)

Didn’t adhere to the programmed deload 73 (29.7%)

Injury / illness 69 (28.0%)

Life/work circumstances 78 (31.7%)

Trained too close to failure 74 (30.1%)

Trained too far from failure 15 (6.1%)

Repetitions per set were too high 33 (13.4%)

Repetitions per set were too low 4 (1.6%)

**Table 9. Assessing the success of deloading**

3.10 Deloading enjoyment
Athletes (n = 246) reported what they do/do not enjoy about deloading. A summary of responses can be
found in Table 10. Some athletes (43.1%) reported that they had neutral feelings about deloading, with
others reporting that they either enjoy deloads (39.4%) or do not enjoy them (15.9%). “Other” responses
related to athletes “sometimes” enjoying deloads, with one athlete reporting that “I really hate them and

Page 14/26
only do them because I know it aids performance, but it makes me feel lazy”. The main reasons for
enjoying deloading included increased recovery (27.2%), reduced psychological burden (25.2%), and that
training sessions were easier (22.8%). Those that did not enjoy deloading stated that they disliked not
training hard (12.6%).

Table 10
Deloading enjoyment
Responses (n = 246)

“Do you enjoy deloads?”

Yes 97 (39.4%)

No 39 (15.9%)

Neutral 106 (43.1%)

Other 4 (1.6%)

“What do you enjoy about deloading?”

Increased recovery 67 (27.2%)

Easier training sessions 56 (22.8%)

More time available for other activities 52 (21.1%)

Decrease in soreness 43 (17.5%)

More energy 43 (17.5%)

Improved injury management 32 (13.0%)

Less psychological burden 62 (25.2%)

What do you not enjoy about deloading?

Less time spent training 16 (6.5%)

Not training hard 31 (12.6%)

Lack of soreness 4 (1.6%)

Losing ‘touch’ with the main lifts 10 (4.1%)

Lack of ‘pump’ 9 (3.7%)

Looking worse 3 (1.2%)

Disrupted lifestyle/schedule 4 (1.6%)

**Table 10. Deloading enjoyment**

3.11 Recovery modalities

Page 15/26
Athletes (n = 246) were asked what recovery modalities they employ in conjunction with deloading. A
summary of responses is presented in Table 11. There were 118 (48.0%) athletes that utilised concurrent
recovery strategies during periods of deloading. The most reported were massage (28.9%), static
stretching (25.6%), and foam rolling (24.8%).

Table 11
Recovery modalities
Responses (n = 246)

“Do you use additional recovery modalities?”

Yes 118 (48.0%)

No 128 (52.0%)

“What recovery strategies do you use in conjunction with deloads?”

Massage 71 (28.9%)

Foam rolling 61 (24.8%)

Static stretching 63 (25.6%)

Nutritional changes 27 (11.0%)

Heat exposure 28 (11.4%)

Cold exposure 17 (6.9%)

Dry needling 11 (4.5%)

Taping 4 (1.6%)

**Table 11. Recovery modalities**

3.12 Deloading education

Athletes (n = 246) reported how they educate themselves on deloading. A summary of responses is
presented in Table 12. The most common education method reported by athletes was published literature
(69.9%) followed by past experience (68.3%) and the athlete’s coach (59.3%).

Page 16/26
 Table 12
Deloading education
Responses (n = 246)

Coach 146 (59.3%)

Literature 172 (69.9%)

Past experience 168 (68.3%)

Other athletes 86 (35.0%)

**Table 12. Deloading education**

4 Discussion
At the time of writing, research investigating deloading within strength and physique sports was notably
absent within the literature. To our knowledge, this study is, therefore, the first to document the deloading
practices of competitive strength and physique athletes and explored both reasons provided for deloading,
experiences of deloading, and approaches taken to do it. We benefited from respondents who participated
in a range of strength and physique sports and were able to gain insight into the practices of individuals
across various training and competitive characteristics, including those competing internationally and
those who were coached and self-coached. The information in this study will therefore assist athletes,
coaches, and sports scientists in better understanding how deloading is undertaken in practice across a
range of groups that participate in strength and physique sports and provides a helpful foundation for
further work to expand upon our preliminary findings through further empirical investigation.

The typical duration of a deload reported by athletes here was 6.4 ± 1.8 days, integrated into training every
5.8 ± 3.4 weeks to preserve energy and manage fatigue through a reduction in total training stress.
Restorative microcycles such as these feature within periodisation systems that strategically manipulate
adaptive training responses to facilitate the long-term, progressive development of physical performance,
whilst ameliorating the negative (‘fatigue’) effects of hard exercise [15]. Deloading was undertaken
proactively through pre-programmed reductions in training stress for a proportion of respondents; a
combination of pre-planned and reactive deloading strategies was also relatively typical; relying solely on
reactive deloading using an autoregulated strategy for some – that is, flexibly, based primarily on
biofeedback gained during training – was much less common, however. It was interesting to note that
deloading through a combination of reactive and pre-planned means was relatively normal amongst
respondents, but that solely relying on reactive strategies was comparatively unusual.

Autoregulated approaches to programming now feature throughout the literature, where training is
adjusted flexibly based on individual rates of adaptation using tools, methods, and techniques such as
Autoregulatory Progressive Resistance Exercise (APRE), Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE), Repetitions in
Reserve (RIR) and Velocity-Based Training (VBT) [25], amongst others. Whilst growing data points to the
utility of methods such as these [26], research exploring the use of reactive/autoregulatory deloading
Page 17/26
strategies is markedly wanting, however. Emerging insight elucidates interindividual responses to
resistance training, where trainees adapt at different rates and magnitudes for a given stimulus [27, 28].
Along with the recognition that lifestyle, phenotype, and psychosocial factors external to training can
affect individuals’ recovery and adaptive potential [22], this variability underpins autoregulated training
[25]. Indeed, recent data highlights that coaches perceive that factors outside of physical training can
heavily influence an athlete’s adaptive response to that training, including life, psychological and
emotional stresses [29]. This means that life-related factors outside of pre-programmed training might
influence an individual’s ability to adapt to it appropriately. Indeed, psychological stressors (such as life
events or perceived stresses) appear to impair recovery and motor function following resistance training
[30, 31]. It stands to reason therefore that managing recovery through reactive strategies that quickly
respond to harmful responses (such as training ‘fatigue’ and/or stress) in an individualised manner is also
prudent and extends the existing autoregulation inquiry into the realms of regeneration as well as training.
Future research should therefore explore autoregulated methods (including combined reactive and pre-
programed methods) to systematically reduce training stress within periodised strength and physique
training programmes, to facilitate long-term progression, alongside those that aim to improve
performance.

The athletes stated that deloading was undertaken to preserve energy, manage/dissipate ‘fatigue’ and
prepare for the next block of training. Most athletes suggested that they felt that they could continue to
progress their training without deloading, indicating that they felt that it might not be a necessity day to
day. Similarly, our study with the coaches of national and international level strength and physique
athletes also revealed that some felt that deloading might not be a prerequisite for progressive training too
[21], perhaps highlighting a degree of inter-individual variability in the need to programme deloading for
consistent progression to be achieved, or that some coaches and athletes might value deloading
more/less than others within training. Interestingly, a recent article highlighted that a one-week period of
no training at the midpoint of a 9-week resistance training programme negatively impacted lower body
strength – but not hypertrophy, power or local muscular endurance – when compared with continuous
training [32], suggesting that the complete cessation of training in this way might be detrimental for
maximal strength where neural adaptations and exposure to load are an important antecedent to
performance [33]. The periodic absence of training within a short-to-medium term programme might
therefore be detrimental to some trainees, and more work might need to be done to understand optimal
deloading strategies to manage training load for purposes such as maximal strength training, hypertrophy,
and rapid force production – a ‘one-size fits all approach’ would appear to conflict with the emerging
experiential and empirical evidence.

The athletes here also reported mixed perspectives around their experience of deloading; some explained
that they enjoyed the increased recovery that deloading provides as well as the reduced physical and
psychological burden of not needing to push training constantly; others were neutral, and some did not
enjoy deloading nor the reduced training of the deloading phase. For some, this highlighted that deloading
might provide important psychological relief as well as physical benefits; for others, deloading might be
perceived as an annoyance. Surprisingly, whilst data points to psychological benefits from engaging in
Page 18/26
resistance exercise [34, 35], there is a scarcity of data exploring the psychological burden of progressive
strength training despite its physical and psychological difficulty. To explain, resistance training acts as an
acute stressor that leads to physiological responses within the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous
system that antedate psychological stress [36]. It has been argued that training in general should be
viewed as a biopsychosocial process with complex physical and psychological interactions [37] and recall
that recent insight from coaches highlights that stress responses are perceived to markedly affect
athletes’ response to training [29]. Allostatic load is the cumulative effect of chronic exposure to the
perceived environmental and physical stressors [39], and while exposure to stress is an important
antecedent to adaptation [39], repeated stress without sufficient recovery is harmful [40]. The physical
requirement to undertake strength training, coupled with the psychological burden of difficult, progressive
training – and, in the case of weight-making and aesthetic sports (such as physique sports), the periodic
need for negative energy balance too – might lead to accumulated allostatic loading and negative health
consequences manifesting over time if not carefully managed [38, 40]. Indeed, training for sport can be an
exhaustive experience punctuated by psychological requirements to perform day-to-day and within
competition [41] – phasic periods to reduce allostatic loading (perhaps through reduced training stress)
might be required for longer-term wellbeing as well as progression, therefore.

Most athletes deloaded by reducing overall training volume and reducing sets and repetitions whilst
maintaining frequency and exercise selection, by reducing intensity by lifting less when completing single
and multi-joint exercises, and by increasing repetitions in reserve (defined as the number of repetitions a
trainee perceives that they complete within a set prior to reaching muscular failure, [42]). Deloading was
therefore achieved by reducing intensity of effort as well as through the manipulation of the traditional
metrics of absolute volume and intensity. Tapering recommendations for strength athletes within the
literature include reducing volume by ~ 30–70% whilst maintaining intensity ≥ 85% 1RM; using an
exponential or step-like taper for 1–2 weeks prior to competition; and with a short cessation period of 2–7
days [19]. Like deloading, tapering strategies serve to reduce the physiological and psychological training
stress, but to do so to ‘peak’ for competition specifically [43]. Whilst research exploring tapering and
peaking strategies is now well established and provides some degree of consensus, similar data for
deloading is comparatively absent. Conceivably, approaches taken to tapering could be adapted and
followed for deloading and might offer some degree of stability if this is familiar to the athlete and that
responses are reliable. Recall that we noted that a small proportion of respondents here disliked deloading,
despite most agreeing that outcomes of a successful deload appear to be beneficial, presumably due to
high levels of intrinsic motivation to train. If responses to deloading are reliable (as in, through a rebound
in performance and improvement in wellbeing) and somewhat analogous to tapering – where athletes
might have experienced success previously – this might improve athletes’ acceptance and perceptions of
deloading, and motivations to do so within training appropriately.

Following the deloading period, most respondents would begin a new phase of training; training would be
made progressively more challenging; and training would be adjusted based on the previous block. A
combination of factors would enable participants to judge whether the deload was effective, including the
dissipation of fatigue, increases in motivation and performance, and reductions in aches and pains;
Page 19/26
training too heavy and with too much volume were revealed to be reasons for unsuccessful deloads.
Interestingly, emerging evidence highlights that molecular responses that mediate adaptations become
blunted to repeated exposure from training, meaning that anabolic signalling as a response to strength
training might reduce over time [44–46]. This could partially explain stagnation and accommodation to
training [39] and provides a physiological rationale for periodically deloading. Indeed, it appears that
periodic unloading re-sensitises signalling [44, 45], meaning that this is a potential means to facilitate
longer-term adaptation as well as manage fatigue, perhaps. Whilst some evidence has utilised periods of
no training to elicit re-sensitisation [44], it also appears that ‘active’ recovery periods of reduced volume
and intensity through a deload – whilst maintaining frequency and exercise selection like the approaches
athletes undertook here – also leads to similar effects without the need to cease training completely, for a
short period [47]. This is important, as motivated athletes (such as some of those who responded here)
might be more likely to reduce training through a deload than to eliminate it completely. Data exploring the
longer-term benefits of periodic unloading within the context of progressive training is absent at the time
of writing however, and more work needs to be done to investigate if deloading facilitates greater strength
and hypertrophy improvements than continuous exercise over time. For the time being, the emerging data
provides only preliminary evidence for potential mechanisms of action and possible benefits if
implemented periodically.

Nearly half of the respondents reported that they supplemented their training with ‘recovery’ modalities
such as massage (28.9%), foam rolling (24.8%) and static stretching (25.6%), amongst others. A wide
variety of approaches to addressing recovery have featured throughout the literature, including “active”
recovery methods utilising submaximal activity to expedite a shift from stress-induced physiologic
disturbance towards physiologic stability through restorative movement [47], and “passive” methods
including massage techniques, cryotherapy and compression garments and devices that aim to facilitate
regeneration through external stimulation [48]. Recently, “proactive” recovery strategies such as breathing
techniques and other self-initiated methods have also been discussed [49] and have gained popular
interest outside of the literature. Interestingly, data supporting the use of recovery techniques appears to
be ambiguous however, with literature suggesting that techniques such as massage [50], cryotherapy and
compressions garments might offer some benefit [51], that stretching [52] and foam rolling [53] might not,
and that active recovery strategies might offer some psychological advantage despite physiologic and
performance benefits not being certain [47]. What is clear is that recovery is a complex, multifaceted
psychobiological process and that no unitary marker exists that adequately encompasses its aetiologic
multiplicity [49, 51]. Indeed, future work might need to explore similarly complex recovery interventions
that purposely attend to performance, physiological, and perceptual recovery markers either in
combination or sequence relevant to their time course of decay.

Limitations of this research include unequal group sizes for the respondents; most athletes here
participated in Powerlifting, meaning that representation from other sports such as Weightlifting and
Strongman/woman was less and that the findings might be most applicable to individuals of that sport
specifically. Similarly, a large proportion of respondents here were coached athletes (45.9%), meaning that
this subsample did not actively programme their own deload strategies and were not the decision-makers
Page 20/26
in their day-to-day training. That said, we were able to recruit participants who were competitive at the
international and national level across the globe, from both sexes, across multiple sports, and provide
unique insight into an important – and under investigated – aspect of training. Similarly, whilst our survey
offered some insight into participants’ experiences of deloading, its design was limited to multiple-choice
responses, meaning that qualitative data was not collected. Future work could expand upon some of our
findings and provide the in-depth exploration of perceptions and experiences around fatigue and
deloading within strength and physique sports through qualitative means and would offer rich insight into
the lived experiences of these aspects of athletes’ training. This might help to understand some of the
psychological aspects of training and deloading that were introduced here and begin to address some of
the emerging criticisms made of the literature, which might have emphasised biological responses without
attending sufficiently to psycho-emotional experience of training [37, 38].

5 Conclusions
Findings from this study highlight common deloading characteristics and methods of competitive
strength and physique athletes that may assist others in conceptualising, designing, and implementing
deloading into their training programmes or research. These characteristics include a general reduction in
training volume and intensity of effort that is approached using autoregulation and pre-programmed
strategies undertaken when the athlete experiences unexpected fatigue or muscle soreness or to pre-empt
its manifestation. It is worth noting that there is a clear lack of empirical research exploring the utility of
deloading in strength and physique sports and therefore the findings from this study act only as broad
guidelines for the development of deload training until further experimental research using robust
methodologies elucidates its value in a practical training environment. Until this point, any
recommendations are based on triangulating anecdotal practices along with evidence elsewhere.

Abbreviations
Autoregulatory Progressive Resistance Exercise (APRE); Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE), Repetitions in
Reserve (RIR); Velocity-Based Training (VBT).

Declarations
Ethics Approval

Institutional ethical approval was granted for this study prior to commencement (ER38311849) from
Sheffield Hallam University. This study was performed in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki
and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Page 21/26
Availability of Data and Material

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Open Science
Framework repository [https://osf.io/jmkpg/?view_only=354ffdd17fab4b3086563c9c6e8199f4].

Competing Interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author’s contributions

All authors have contributed substantially to the study. DN, PK, VI, MW and LB conceptualised and
designed the study. Data collection and analysis were performed by DN and LB. DR and LB wrote the
preliminary drafts. DR interpreted findings, wrote, and completed the final study. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript prior to submission.

Acknowledgements

N/A

Author’s information

N/A

Rights and Permissions

For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to
any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

References
1. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Stone MH. The importance of muscular strength in athletic performance.
Sports medicine. 2016;46:1419-49.
2. Alves RC, Prestes J, Enes A, de Moraes WM, Trindade TB, de Salles BF, Aragon AA, Souza-Junior TP.
Training programs designed for muscle hypertrophy in bodybuilders: a narrative review. Sports.
2020;8(11):149.
3. Ferland, P. M., & Comtois, A. S. (2019). Classic powerlifting performance: A systematic review. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 33, S194-S201.
4. Hindle BR, Lorimer A, Winwood P, Keogh JW. The biomechanics and applications of strongman
exercises: a systematic review. Sports Medicine-Open. 2019;5(1):1-9.

Page 22/26
 5. Storey A, Smith HK. Unique aspects of competitive weightlifting: performance, training and
physiology. Sports medicine. 2012;42:769-90.
6. World Natural Bodybuilding Federation [Internet]. Sacramento (US): Judging criteria; [reviewed 2023
Sept 03; cited 2023 Sept 05] Available from: https://www.worldnaturalbb.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/03/Judging-Criteria-Men-Bodybuilding-2020.pdf.
7. Mitchell L, Slater G, Hackett D, Johnson N, O’Connor H. Physiological implications of preparing for a
natural male bodybuilding competition. European journal of sport science. 2018;18(5):619-29.
8. Folland JP, Williams AG. Morphological and neurological contributions to increased strength. Sports
medicine. 2007;37:145-68.
9. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Bellon CR, Stone MH. The importance of muscular strength: training
considerations. Sports medicine. 2018;48:765-85.
10. Burnie L. The effects of strength training on intermuscular coordination during maximal cycling.
Sheffield Hallam University (United Kingdom); 2020.
11. De Souza EO, Tricoli V, Rauch J, Alvarez MR, Laurentino G, Aihara AY, Cardoso FN, Roschel H,
Ugrinowitsch C. Different patterns in muscular strength and hypertrophy adaptations in untrained
individuals undergoing nonperiodized and periodized strength regimens. The journal of strength &
conditioning research. 2018;32(5):1238-44.
12. Bellamy LM, Joanisse S, Grubb A, Mitchell CJ, McKay BR, Phillips SM, Baker S, Parise G. The acute
satellite cell response and skeletal muscle hypertrophy following resistance training. PloS one.
2014;9(10):e109739.
13. Hirono T, Ikezoe T, Taniguchi M, Tanaka H, Saeki J, Yagi M, Umehara J, Ichihashi N. Relationship
between muscle swelling and hypertrophy induced by resistance training. Journal of strength and
conditioning research. 2022;36(2):359-64.
14. Plotkin D, Coleman M, Van Every D, Maldonado J, Oberlin D, Israetel M, Feather J, Alto A, Vigotsky AD,
Schoenfeld BJ. Progressive overload without progressing load? The effects of load or repetition
progression on muscular adaptations. PeerJ. 2022;10:e14142.
15. Stone MH, Hornsby WG, Haff GG, Fry AC, Suarez DG, Liu J, Gonzalez-Rave JM, Pierce KC.
Periodization and block periodization in sports: emphasis on strength-power training—a provocative
and challenging narrative. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2021 Aug;35(8):2351-71.
16. Kataoka R, Vasenina E, Hammert WB, Ibrahim AH, Dankel SJ, Buckner SL. Is there evidence for the
suggestion that fatigue accumulates following resistance exercise?. Sports Medicine. 2022; 52:1-2.
17. Cunanan AJ, DeWeese BH, Wagle JP, Carroll KM, Sausaman R, Hornsby WG, Haff GG, Triplett NT,
Pierce KC, Stone MH. The general adaptation syndrome: a foundation for the concept of
periodization. Sports Medicine. 2018;48:787-97.
18. Bell L, Ruddock A, Maden-Wilkinson T, Rogerson D. Overreaching and overtraining in strength sports
and resistance training: A scoping review. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2020;38(16):1897-912.
19. Travis SK, Mujika I, Gentles JA, Stone MH, Bazyler CD. Tapering and peaking maximal strength for
powerlifting performance: a review. Sports. 2020;8(9):125.
Page 23/26
20. Wilson JM, Wilson GJ. A practical approach to the taper. Strength & Conditioning Journal.
2008;30(2):10-7.
21. Bell L, Nolan D, Immonen V, Helms E, Dallamore J, Wolf M, Androulakis Korakakis P. “You can't shoot
another bullet until you've reloaded the gun”: Coaches' perceptions, practices and experiences of
deloading in strength and physique sports. Frontiers in Sports and Active living. 2022;4:1073223.
22. Carpinelli RN. Interindividual heterogeneity of adaptations to resistance training. Medicina Sportiva
Practica. 2017;18(4):79-94.
23. Taherdoost H. Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of a
questionnaire/survey in a research. How to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research.
International Journal of Academic Research in Management. 2016;5:28-36.
24. Colbert CY, French JC, Arroliga AC, Bierer SB. Best practice versus actual practice: an audit of survey
pretesting practices reported in a sample of medical education journals. Medical education online.
2019;24(1):1673596.
25. Shattock K, Tee JC. Autoregulation in resistance training: a comparison of subjective versus objective
methods. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2022;36(3):641-8.
26. Zhang X, Li H, Bi S, Luo Y, Cao Y, Zhang G. Auto-regulation method vs. fixed-loading method in
maximum strength training for athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in
physiology. 2021;12:651112.
27. Ahtiainen JP, Walker S, Peltonen H, Holviala J, Sillanpää E, Karavirta L, Sallinen J, Mikkola J,
Valkeinen H, Mero A, Hulmi JJ. Heterogeneity in resistance training-induced muscle strength and
mass responses in men and women of different ages. Age. 2016;38:1-3.
28. Pickering C, Kiely J. Do non-responders to exercise exist—and if so, what should we do about them?.
Sports Medicine. 2019;49:1-7.
29. Anyadike-Danes K, Donath L, Kiely J. Coaches’ Perceptions of Factors Driving Training Adaptation: An
International Survey. Sports medicine. 2023:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01894-1
30. Stults-Kolehmainen MA, Bartholomew JB. Psychological stress impairs short-term muscular recovery
from resistance exercise. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2012;44(11):2220-7.
31. Stults-Kolehmainen MA, Bartholomew JB, Sinha R. Chronic psychological stress impairs recovery of
muscular function and somatic sensations over a 96-hour period. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research. 2014;28(7):2007-17.
32. Coleman M, Burke R, Augustin F, Pinero A, Maldonado J, Fisher J, Israetel M, Androulakis-Korakakis P,
Swinton P, Oberlin D, Schoenfeld B. Gaining more from doing less? The effects of a one-week deload
period during supervised resistance training on muscular adaptations.
https://doi.org/10.51224/SRXIV.302.
33. Encarnação IG, Viana RB, Soares SR, Freitas ED, de Lira CA, Ferreira-Junior JB. Effects of detraining
on muscle strength and hypertrophy induced by resistance training: a systematic review. Muscles.
2022;1(1):1-5.

Page 24/26
34. Li Z, Peng X, Xiang W, Han J, Li K. The effect of resistance training on cognitive function in the older
adults: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research.
2018;30:1259-73.
35. Landrigan JF, Bell T, Crowe M, Clay OJ, Mirman D. Lifting cognition: a meta-analysis of effects of
resistance exercise on cognition. Psychological research. 2020;84(5):1167-83.
36. Becker L, Semmlinger L, Rohleder N. Resistance training as an acute stressor in healthy young men:
associations with heart rate variability, alpha-amylase, and cortisol levels. Stress. 2021;24(3):318-30.
37. Kiely J. Periodization theory: confronting an inconvenient truth. Sports Medicine. 2018;48(4):753-64.
38. Guidi J, Lucente M, Sonino N, Fava GA. Allostatic load and its impact on health: a systematic review.
Psychotherapy and psychosomatics. 2020;90(1):11-27.
39. Zatsiorsky VM, Kraemer WJ, Fry AC. Science and practice of strength training. Human Kinetics; 2020
Mar 25.
40. Schaal K, VanLoan MD, Hausswirth C, Casazza GA. Decreased energy availability during training
overload is associated with non-functional overreaching and suppressed ovarian function in female
runners. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 2021;46(10):1179-88.
41. Vetter RE, Symonds ML. Correlations between injury, training intensity, and physical and mental
exhaustion among college athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
2010;24(3):587-96.
42. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Schau KA, Jo E, Helms E, Esgro B, Duncan S, Merino SG,
Blanco R. Novel resistance training–specific rating of perceived exertion scale measuring repetitions
in reserve. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2016;30(1):267-75.
43. Winwood PW, Keogh JW, Travis SK, Pritchard HJ. The tapering practices of competitive weightlifters.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2023;37(4):829-39.
44. Jacko D, Bersiner K, Schulz O, Przyklenk A, Spahiu F, Höhfeld J, Bloch W, Gehlert S. Coordinated alpha-
crystallin B phosphorylation and desmin expression indicate adaptation and deadaptation to
resistance exercise-induced loading in human skeletal muscle. American Journal of Physiology-Cell
Physiology. 2020;319(2):C300-12.
45. Ogasawara R, Yasuda T, Ishii N, Abe T. Comparison of muscle hypertrophy following 6-month of
continuous and periodic strength training. European journal of applied physiology. 2013;113:975-85.
46. Ulbricht A, Gehlert S, Leciejewski B, Schiffer T, Bloch W, Höhfeld J. Induction and adaptation of
chaperone-assisted selective autophagy CASA in response to resistance exercise in human skeletal
muscle. Autophagy. 2015;11(3):538-46.
47. Ortiz Jr RO, Elder AJ, Elder CL, Dawes JJ. A systematic review on the effectiveness of active recovery
interventions on athletic performance of professional-, collegiate-, and competitive-level adult
athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2019;33(8):2275-87.
48. Cullen MF, Casazza GA, Davis BA. Passive recovery strategies after exercise: a narrative literature
review of the current evidence. Current sports medicine reports. 2021;20(7):351-8.

Page 25/26
49. Li S, Kempe M, Brink M, Lemmink K. Effectiveness of Recovery Strategies after Training and
Competition in Endurance Athletes-an Umbrella Review. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3167354/v1.
50. Davis HL, Alabed S, Chico TJ. Effect of sports massage on performance and recovery: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine. 2020;6(1):e000614.
51. Kellmann M, Bertollo M, Bosquet L, Brink M, Coutts AJ, Duffield R, Erlacher D, Halson SL, Hecksteden
A, Heidari J, Kallus KW. Recovery and performance in sport: consensus statement. International
journal of sports physiology and performance. 2018;13(2):240-5.
52. Afonso J, Clemente FM, Nakamura FY, Morouço P, Sarmento H, Inman RA, Ramirez-Campillo R. The
effectiveness of post-exercise stretching in short-term and delayed recovery of strength, range of
motion and delayed onset muscle soreness: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials. Frontiers in physiology. 2021:553.
53. Wiewelhove T, Döweling A, Schneider C, Hottenrott L, Meyer T, Kellmann M, Pfeiffer M, Ferrauti A. A
meta-analysis of the effects of foam rolling on performance and recovery. Frontiers in physiology.
2019:376.

Page 26/26