Recovery has become an industry. Massage guns, compression boots, infrared devices, cold plunges, red light panels — each promises to accelerate what the body does on its own. Kate Lyman and Michael from the How To: Fitness Podcast spend 42 minutes asking the question that the industry prefers you not ask too carefully: what does the research actually say?
The answer is more nuanced than both the enthusiasts and the skeptics suggest. Some recovery modalities work well. Some work modestly. Some work primarily because the person using them believes they will. Understanding the difference allows for more intentional, more effective recovery practice.
Before any other recovery modality can be meaningfully evaluated, the baseline must be addressed: sleep is the most powerful recovery tool available, and no intervention compensates for its absence.
During slow-wave sleep, growth hormone pulses. Tissue repair accelerates. Memory consolidation occurs. Inflammation from training is resolved. The glymphatic system — the brain's waste-clearance network — operates primarily during sleep, clearing the metabolic byproducts of neural activity.
The data are unambiguous: chronic sleep restriction of even one to two hours per night produces measurable impairments in strength, power output, reaction time, decision-making, and immune function. Adding a massage gun to an inadequate sleep practice is not a meaningful recovery strategy.
cold water immersion protocols sits at the intersection of strong subjective experience and more modest objective evidence for many of the claims made on its behalf. Michael walks through the literature carefully.
Acute pain and soreness reduction: well-supported. The vasoconstriction and neural effects of cold reliably reduce the immediate sensation of post-exercise soreness. Perceived recovery: also well-supported — people feel better after cold. Long-term performance adaptation: more contested. Some studies show no significant advantage over other recovery methods; others show meaningful benefits for specific populations and training types.
The practical synthesis: cold water immersion is a legitimate recovery tool for managing soreness and improving perceived readiness. Its performance-enhancing claims require more qualification, and its use should be timed carefully relative to strength training.
Massage has one of the oldest evidence bases in recovery science, and one of the more honest ones: it reliably reduces perceived soreness and improves mood, but its effects on objective performance markers are modest and inconsistent.
Massage guns extend this picture. The devices produce localized percussion that reduces tissue tension and improves short-term range of motion. Whether they produce outcomes meaningfully different from traditional massage or self-myofascial release is an open question. The evidence for dramatic performance enhancement from percussive therapy is thin.
This does not mean massage is not valuable. Reducing the subjective experience of soreness is a legitimate outcome — it affects training adherence, willingness to move, and quality of life. But calibrating expectations prevents over-investment in a tool that delivers comfort more reliably than it delivers performance.
Among the recovery modalities with consistently strong evidence, active recovery — low-intensity movement on rest days — stands out for its combination of effectiveness and accessibility.
Light aerobic work, walking, swimming, or yoga on rest days increases blood flow to muscle tissue, accelerates clearance of metabolic waste products, and reduces the stiffness associated with complete rest. The physiological mechanism is simple: movement helps the body move what needs to be moved.
The evidence comparing active recovery to passive recovery consistently favors the former for markers of readiness and soreness. And the cost is near zero: a twenty-minute walk or a gentle bike ride serves the same function as many tools that cost significantly more.