Key result
Light active recovery (standing and pacing) following a simulated hockey shift significantly augmented cardiac output by an average of 2.5 L/min compared to passive seated recovery.
Why the study?
Does active recovery maintain cardiac output compared to passive recovery in healthy hockey players following a simulated shift?
RCT (n=15)
Open-label
Randomized cross-over
No
Does active recovery maintain cardiac output compared to passive recovery in healthy hockey players following a simulated shift?
Mean Difference: 2.5
p-value: p=0.03
Light active recovery (standing/pacing) between ice hockey shifts effectively maintains cardiac output and venous return compared to passive seated rest.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May support active recovery to improve post-shift hemodynamics in hockey; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
Burr et al. (2015) conducted an RCT in Healthy hockey players (n=15). Active recovery (standing and pacing) vs. Passive recovery (seated rest) was evaluated on Cardiac output during recovery (MD 2.5 L/min, p=0.03). Light active recovery (standing and pacing) following a simulated hockey shift significantly augmented cardiac output by an average of 2.5 L/min compared to passive seated recovery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: