REF-913 · Van Hooren & Peake, 2018 · Sports Medicine, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

Do We Need a Cool-Down After Exercise? A Narrative Review of the Psychophysiological Effects and the Effects on Performance, Injuries and the Long-Term Adaptive Response

B+moderate evidenceMeasured on a mixed groupWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

The belief that an active cool-down aids recovery better than a passive one had never been synthesised. This review finds active cool-downs largely ineffective for same-day and next-day performance, though some studies report next-day benefits.

They do not appear to prevent injuries, and preliminary evidence suggests that doing them regularly does not blunt long-term adaptation.

They speed the clearance of blood lactate, but not necessarily muscle lactate, and may partly prevent immune depression and speed cardiovascular and respiratory recovery — whether that lowers illness, syncope or cardiovascular complications is unknown.

Most evidence shows no reduction in muscle soreness or improvement in damage markers, neuromuscular function, stiffness, range of motion, hormones or psychological recovery, and an active cool-down can interfere with muscle glycogen resynthesis. Overall: largely ineffective for most recovery markers, but it may still offer some benefits over a passive cool-down.

Participants

Not applicable (narrative review).

Protocol

Narrative review comparing various active cool-downs with passive cool-downs (no activity) on sports performance, injuries, long-term adaptive response and psychophysiological recovery markers.

Key Results

Performance: largely ineffective for same-day and next-day(s) performance; some beneficial next-day effects reported.
Injuries: active cool-downs do not appear to prevent them.
Adaptation: preliminary evidence that a regular active cool-down does not attenuate the long-term adaptive response.
Lactate: faster recovery of blood lactate, not necessarily of muscle lactate.
Systems: may partly prevent immune-system depression and speed cardiovascular and respiratory recovery; effect on post-exercise illness, syncope and cardiovascular complications unknown.
No clear effect on muscle soreness, indirect muscle-damage markers, neuromuscular contractile properties, musculotendinous stiffness, range of motion, systemic hormones or psychological recovery.
Glycogen: an active cool-down can interfere with muscle glycogen resynthesis.

Practical Application

"Do I need a cool-down?" This narrative review of active vs passive cool-downs concludes they are largely ineffective for next-day performance, soreness, muscle damage and injury prevention, on preliminary evidence do not blunt adaptation, clear blood lactate faster, and may help the heart, lungs and immune system settle — so a short easy cool-down is optional, not a recovery tool to rely on.
Skip "flushing lactate" as the reason: faster blood-lactate clearance did not translate into better next-day performance or less soreness.
When glycogen refill matters (two sessions in a day, stage racing), a long active cool-down can work against it; eating comes first.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: a few minutes easy after hard sessions, mainly to let breathing and heart rate settle, then food — the full recovery framework is SYNTH-70.

Limitations

Narrative review; no systematic search or pooled effect sizes in the abstract.
The adaptation, illness, syncope and cardiovascular points are preliminary or unknown by the authors' own wording.
Cool-down types, durations and intensities vary across the studies reviewed; the abstract gives no dose.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

authoritative narrative review; no systematic method or pooled effect sizes

Content correction 2026-09-27
2026-10-01: independent check against the abstract — wording brought back to what the abstract states.