How active recovery affects recovery and performance for running, OCR, and endurance sports
Thomas Solomon, PhD.
Updated onReading time approx 4½ minutes (900 words).
What you’ll learn:
Active recovery is low-to-moderate intensity movement done within a session (between efforts) or between sessions (on easier days).
After a hard session, active recovery is likely to reduce feelings of muscle soreness, and it may help restore performance if you need to go again within hours.
But during sprint interval training, passive recovery between intervals might be better than active recovery if your goal is to keep max power high.
Curious about the how and why? Scroll down for the details, the nuances, and the nerdy bits.
The information I provide is not medical advice. Before making any changes to your habits of daily living based on any information I provide, always ensure it is safe for you to do so and consult your doctor if you are unsure.
What is active recovery?
“Active recovery” sounds like an oxymoron, because recovery is basically your body getting back to normal: restoring homeostasis, repairing tissue, refilling fuel, and getting your performance back online. That takes time and rest. So why on earth would we add more movement?
Here’s the helpful way to think about it: easy sessions between hard sessions can support recovery mainly by giving you something you need anyway — time. They create space between the carefully planned chaos days. But (nerdy caveat), those easy sessions still stress your body a bit. They still nudge homeostasis. So they’re not “free”. They’re just cheaper.
Recovery culture is full of gadgets, pills, and potions claiming to “clear lactate,” “flush toxins,” or “boost blood flow.” Some of that is marketing confetti. One of the simplest, most powerful recovery tools is still… movement. A gentle walk after training is active recovery. Sitting down and doing nothing is passive recovery. Both can be the right choice, depending on what you’re trying to recover from, and when you need to be ready to perform again.
A 2018 narrative reviewA narrative review describes an entire body of evidence to summarise what is known on a topic. However, instead of using a systematic approach, a narrative review takes a subjective approach that allows the author(s) to express their opinion on the topic. by Bas Van Hooren and Jonathan Peake suggested that many athletes do a cool down of about 5 to 15 minutes of low-to-moderate intensity exercise within 1 hour of finishing a session or race, but it may only help restore performance when the next bout is very soon (up to about 20 minutes later). If the next bout is more than 4 hours later, an active cool down is likely not useful for boosting performance later that day or in the following days. However, a narrative review — even a very good one — does not use a standardised systematic approach. Also, Van Hooren and Peake focused on later-in-the-day performance after a cool down, not the bigger question of between-session “active recovery.” So… what do more systematic approaches say?
What is the scientific evidence on the effect of active recovery on recovery and athletic performance?
Quick note: some researchers label things like massage, foam rolling, or cold exposure as “active recovery.” For this post, “active recovery” means actually moving your body with light activity like walking, jogging, cycling, or swimming.
Between sessions, light active recovery can have a large effect on reducing feelings of delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), especially in the short-term (up to about 6 to 24 hours). But it seems less effective for reducing perceived fatigue (see Dupuy et al. 2018).
The best “dose” of active recovery between hard sessions (intensity and duration) is still unclear. At the moment, we don’t have enough consistent data to say “do exactly X minutes at exactly Y effort.” In practice, most endurance coaches still favor low-to-moderate intensity work between harder sessions because it usually lets you train again tomorrow without feeling like your legs were fed through a paper shredder.
Inside sprint interval sessions, active recovery during the rest periods tends to reduce the restoration of sprint performance and increase perceived effort compared with passive recovery (sitting or lying down) (see Perrier-Melo et al. 2021 & Madueno et al. 2019). However, a systematic reviewA systematic review answers a specific research question by systematically collating all known experimental evidence, which is collected according to pre-specified eligibility criteria. A systematic review helps inform decisions, guidelines, and policy. by Zouhal et al. 2024 found that either active or passive recovery during interval training can improve fitness in trained and untrained adults. That suggests the choice of within-session recovery might matter for “how the workout feels” and short-term output, but not necessarily for long-term training gains.
When athletes have to do repeated, prolonged high-intensity efforts within the same day (running, cycling, soccer, and friends), an active recovery of about 6 to 10 minutes may restore high-intensity performance better than passive rest, or active recovery shorter than 6 minutes or longer than 10 minutes (see Ortiz et al. 2019). This could matter if you’re racing multiple times in a day. But because results vary between studies, we still need more high-quality research before anyone should carve this into a stone tablet.
One big headache in this field: “active recovery” isn’t always defined clearly across studies (see Ortiz et al. 2019 for an overview). Sometimes it means walking, jogging, cycling, or swimming at low-to-moderate intensity. Other times it means devices or “modalities” that claim to help recovery. When the definition keeps changing, the overall quality of evidence drops, and comparisons get kinda messy.
Also, we’ve known for many moons that the best way to increase muscle contractions, blood flow, and cardiac output is to move (see Joyner and Casey 2015). Gentle walking, cycling, swimming, or light jogging raises heart rate and massively increases blood flow to working muscles, which boosts venous return — no device can match the magnitude of the normal exercise-driven response in those variables.
Finally, a reality check: feeling “not recovered” or “flat” is sometimes a simple sign that you didn’t rest enough between sessions. In that case, doing more activity as “recovery” is not always the best move. If your body is waving a tiny white flag and whispering “please stop”, then passive rest is a perfectly respectable scientific intervention. Sit down. Chill. Recover like a professional.
Can active recovery enhance recovery and athletic performance?
Active recovery (moving) is likely to improve the restoration of performance and reduce feelings of muscle soreness after high-intensity exercise. However, passive recovery (sitting or lying down) between intervals is likely better for maximising power output during sprint interval training. That said, the choice of within-session recovery (active vs. passive) does not seem to influence fitness gains during training interventions.
The effect sizesA standardized measure of the magnitude of an effect of an intervention. Unlike p-values, effect sizes show how large the effect is and indicate how meaningful it might be. Common effect size measures include standardised mean difference (SMD), Cohen’s d, Hedges’ g, eta-squared, and correlation coefficients. are unclear because there are not enough studies and there is no meta-analysisA meta-analysis quantifies the overall effect size of a treatment by compiling effect sizes from all known studies of that treatment..
Because of a lack of research, it is unclear whether active recovery works differently in trained athletes versus untrained people, and in males versus females.
Keep in mind: there is high heterogeneityHeterogeneity shows how much the results in different studies in a meta-analysis vary from each other. It is measured as the percentage of variation (the I2 value). A rule of thumb: if I2 is roughly 25%, that indicates low heterogeneity (good), 50% is moderate, and 75% indicates high heterogeneity (bad). High heterogeneity means there’s more variability in effects between studies and, therefore, a less precise overall effect estimate. (variability) in study designs and a small number of studies. So, the overall certainty of evidenceCertainty of evidence tells us how confident we are that the published results accurately reflect the true effect. It’s based on factors like study design, risk of bias, consistency, directness, precision, and publication bias. Low certainty means more doubt and less confidence, and that future studies could easily change the conclusions. High certainty means that the current evidence is so strong and consistent that future studies are unlikely to change conclusions. remains lowA low quality of evidence means that, in general, studies in this field have several limitations. This could be due to inconsistency in effects between studies, a large range of effect sizes between studies, and/or a high risk of bias (caused by inappropriate controls, a small number of studies, small numbers of participants, poor/absent randomization processes, missing data, inappropriate methods/statistics). When the quality of evidence is low, there is more doubt and less confidence in the overall effect of an intervention, and future studies could easily change overall conclusions. The best way to improve the quality of evidence is for scientists to conduct large, well-controlled, high-quality randomized controlled trials. until additional high-quality randomised controlled trialsThe “gold standard” approach for determining whether a treatment has a causal effect on an outcome of interest. In such a study, a sample of people representing the population of interest is randomised to receive the treatment or a no-treatment placebo (control), and the outcome of interest is measured before and after the exposure to treatment/control. are published and a meta-analysisA meta-analysis quantifies the overall effect size of a treatment by compiling effect sizes from all known studies of that treatment. can be completed.
How to use this: After hard training or racing, try a short, easy cool down (think gentle walking, easy spinning, or very light jogging) if you need to feel better and perform again within hours. But, during sprint interval sessions, choose passive rest between intervals if you’re trying to keep peak power high. And if you’re clearly under-recovered, don’t force “active recovery” out of guilt — rest is a legit plan.
Information you can trust. All content on Veohtu is meticulously researched and written by Thomas Solomon, PhD. He does not sell supplements, recovery products, or ad space, and he has no sponsorships, brand affiliations, or ambassador roles. Everything you read reflects his independent views, shaped solely by peer-reviewed scientific evidence — and that will never change.
Full list of meta-analyses examining active recovery for recovery
Here are the meta-analyses I've summarised above:
Effects of Passive or Active Recovery Regimes Applied During Long-Term Interval Training on Physical Fitness in Healthy Trained and Untrained Individuals: A Systematic Review. Zouhalet al. (2024) Sports Med Open.
Effect of active versus passive recovery on performance-related outcome during high-intensity interval exercise. Perrier-Melo RJ, D'Amorim I, Meireles Santos T, Caldas Costa E, Rodrigues Barbosa R, DA Cunha Costa M. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2021
The Use of Acute Exercise Interventions as Game Day Priming Strategies to Improve Physical Performance and Athlete Readiness in Team-Sport Athletes: A Systematic Review. Mason B, McKune A, Pumpa K,Ball N. Sports Med. 2020
A Systematic Review on the Effectiveness of Active Recovery Interventions on Athletic Performance of Professional-, Collegiate-, and Competitive-Level Adult Athletes. Ortiz RO Jr, Sinclair Elder AJ, Elder CL, Dawes JJ. J Strength Cond Res. 2019
A systematic review examining the physiological, perceptual, and performance effects of active and passive recovery modes applied between repeated-sprints. Madueno MC, Guy JH, Dalbo VJ, Scanlan AT. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2019
An Evidence-Based Approach for Choosing Post-exercise Recovery Techniques to Reduce Markers of Muscle Damage, Soreness, Fatigue, and Inflammation: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis. Dupuy O, Douzi W, Theurot D, Bosquet L, Dugué B. Front Physiol. 2018
Contrast water therapy and exercise induced muscle damage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bieuzen F, Bleakley CM, Costello JT. PLoS One. 2013 (NOTE: yes, I know this doesn’t look like an active recovery review but some of the studies selected used active recovery as a comparator to contrast water therapy.)
Share this article with your people:
Who is Thomas Solomon?
My knowledge has been honed following 20+ years of running, cycling, hiking, cross-country skiing, lifting, and climbing, 15+ years of academic research at world-leading universities and hospitals, and 10+ years advising and coaching in athletic performance and lifestyle change.
I have a BSc in Biochemistry, a PhD in Exercise Science, and over 90 peer-reviewed publications in medical journals.
I'm also an ACSM-certified Exercise Physiologist (ACSM-EP), an ACSM-certified Personal Trainer (ACSM-CPT), a VDOT-certified Distance Running Coach, and a UKVRN Registered Nutritionist (RNutr).
Since 2002, I’ve conducted biomedical research in exercise and nutrition and have taught and led university courses in exercise physiology, active recovery, biochemistry, and molecular medicine.
And, with my personal experience of competing on the track (800m to 10,000m), the road (5 k to marathon), on the trails, and in the mountains, by foot, bicycle, cross-country ski, and during obstacle course races (OCR), I deeply understand what it's like to train and compete — I've been there, done it, and gotten sweat, mud, and tears on my t-shirt.
Disclaimer: I occasionally mention brands and products, but it is important to know that I don't sell recovery products, supplements, or ad space, and I'm not affiliated with / sponsored by / an ambassador for / receiving advertisement royalties from any brands. I have conducted biomedical research for which I’ve received research money from publicly-funded national research councils and medical charities, and also from private companies, including Novo Nordisk Foundation, AstraZeneca, Amylin, the A.P. Møller Foundation, and the Augustinus Foundation. I’ve also consulted for Boost Treadmills and Gu Energy on R&D grant applications, and I provide research and scientific writing services for Examine.com. Some of my articles contain links to information provided by Examine.com but I do not receive any royalties or bonuses from those links. Importantly, none of the companies described above have had any control over the research design, data analysis, or publication outcomes of my work. I research and write my content using state-of-the-art, consensus, peer reviewed, and published scientific evidence combined with my empirical evidence observed in practice and feedback from athletes. My advice is, and always will be, based on my own views and opinions shaped by the scientific evidence available. The information I provide is not medical advice. Before making any changes to your habits of daily living based on any information I provide, always ensure it is safe for you to do so and consult your doctor if you are unsure.