REF-598 · Borges, Reaburn, Driller & Argus, 2016 · Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, · Paper · PubMed
Any age effect on masters athletes' performance and recovery is smaller than originally suggested and largely explained by training status; limited evidence of an age effect on recovery kinetics
More research needed
Key Findings
Little is known about the effect of age on recovery kinetics in masters athletes; the review covers aging, sport participation, and the effect on performance and on recovery after an exercise bout.
The effect of age on performance and recovery may be smaller than originally suggested; increasingly sedentary lifestyles appear to play a larger role in observed decrements in performance and recovery among masters athletes.
Performance decrements are inevitable with age, but performance capacities can be maintained through systematic physical training.
The limited current research suggests there may be an age effect on recovery kinetics following an exercise bout; further research is required on acute and chronic recovery processes in masters athletes.
The underlying studies point to reduced recovery of neuromuscular function after muscle-damaging exercise in masters athletes (a 55-km trail run; a 10 × 10 leg-press bout), but to similar physical recovery, with greater perceived fatigue and soreness, over three 30-min cycling time trials on consecutive days, and to age-independent heart-rate recovery in similarly trained men; the review states that no research has yet examined the mechanisms of delayed recovery (preprint full text, checked 2026-09-28: recovery section).
Practical Application
This narrative review of masters athletes concludes that any age effect on performance and recovery is smaller than originally suggested and that sedentary lifestyle explains more of the observed decrements than age; the evidence for slower recovery kinetics with age is limited and the authors call for more research — do not assume a well-trained masters athlete needs more recovery than a younger one on the basis of age alone.
Not from this paper: the review reports no recovery interval in hours and no sessions-per-week figure; a default of two quality sessions per week or a 3:1 build/recovery rhythm is a house heuristic, not this review's conclusion.
Extra caution after unaccustomed eccentric load (downhill running, heavy negatives, first plyos) is reasonable — the underlying literature on damaging exercise is where an age effect is most suggested (preprint full text, checked 2026-09-28: the conclusion says recovery is not affected by age unless muscle damage delays the recovery of neuromuscular function).
Use monitoring (sRPE, readiness, next-session power/pace) rather than a blanket age rule — the review's central point is that training status, not age, carries most of the difference.
Limitations
Narrative synthesis; small heterogeneous underlying studies; strong training-status confound; sparse data in elite masters/women.
The abstract itself describes the recovery evidence as "limited" — this entry cannot carry a quantitative recovery rule.
How this entry was checked and changed
Content correction 2026-09-27
Headline "slower/blunted recovery — plan longer gaps" -> any age effect on performance and recovery is smaller than originally suggested and largely explained by sedentary lifestyle / training status; only limited evidence of an age effect on recovery kinetics.
"2 quality sessions/wk not 3 — this review's own conclusion" and "3-wk build / 1-wk recovery" -> not in the paper; moved under "Not from this paper" as house heuristics.
Mechanistic contributors (satellite cells, inflammatory kinetics) -> marked full text, not checked against the abstract.
2026-09-28: lines labelled "full text; not checked" read against the open-access full text (researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz, accepted manuscript): 1 confirmed, 1 corrected ("blunted regenerative and inflammatory kinetics proposed as contributors" removed -- the review says no research has examined the mechanisms), 0 removed.