Specificity and context in post-exercise recovery: it is not a one-size-fits-all approach

Citation: Minett GM and Costello JT (2015) Specificity and context in post-exercise recovery: it is not a one-size-fits-all approach. The concept of specificity of exercise prescription and training is a longstanding and widely accepted foundation of the exercise sciences. Simply, the principle holds that training adaptations are achieved relative to the stimulus applied. That is, the manipulation of training variables (e.g., intensity or loading, mode, volume, and frequency) directly influences the acute training stimulus , and so the long-term adaptive response (Young et al., 2001; Bird et al., 2005). Translating this concept to practice then recommends that exercise be prescribed specific to the desired outcomes, and the more closely this is achieved, the greater the performance gain is likely to be. However, the cardiovascular and metabolic adaptations traditionally associated with long, slow distance training types, similarly achieved using high-intensity training methods (for a review see Gibala et al., 2012), highlights understanding of underlying physiology as paramount for effective training program design. Various other factors including illness, sleep, and psychology also impact on the training stimulus (Halson, 2014) and must be managed collectively with appropriate post-exercise recovery to continue performance improvements and reduce overtraining and injury risks (Kenttä and Hassmén, 1998). Despite the emphasis that is placed on specificity in the application of the desired training stimulus , it is noteworthy that this concept receives less attention within the post-exercise recovery literature. Indeed, most recovery strategies are intended to treat only symptoms of exercise-induced muscle damage by blunting inflammatory responses associated with disturbances to the structural integrity of the exercised musculature (Minett and Duffield, 2014). Be it through lifestyle (e.g., active recovery, sleep), physiological (e.g., post-exercise cooling, massage, compression), or nutritional and pharmacological interventions (e.g., supplements, anti-inflammatory medications), these common recovery techniques aim to hasten regenerative processes below the neuromuscular junction with limited consideration for other causative mechanisms (Minett and Duffield, 2014). Compounded by the use of different exercise tasks under varying environmental conditions (e.g., hot vs. thermo-neutral temperatures) and contexts (e.g., isolated vs. repeated exercise bouts, pre-season vs. competition), this tendency for a one-size-fits-all approach to post-exercise recovery is likely to contribute to contrasting reports of the efficacy of many techniques. While these concerns could indicate the need for greater understanding of the mechanistic demands of specific exercise tasks and post-exercise recovery protocols so to be suitably matched, they are of great consequence in applied settings where maladaptation may be …