Effects of a sequenced stretching and massage recovery protocol on physiological and perceptual responses after high-intensity exercise in collegiate football players

Abstract

Background and Study Aim. Short-term recovery occurs between successive exercise bouts in intermittent sports. Intense exercise is followed by metabolic accumulation, inflammatory responses, and increased muscle discomfort. Static stretching and massage are used as recovery strategies after exercise. Despite the use of these approaches, their relative effectiveness in enhancing acute recovery remains a subject of practical consideration. This study examined whether a sequenced combination of static stretching followed by massage enhances acute recovery more than single-modality interventions or passive rest. Materials and Methods. Forty-eight male collegiate football players (19–22 years) were randomly allocated to sport massage (SM), static stretching (SS), sequenced combination (SC), or passive control (CON). Participants completed an incremental treadmill test to induce metabolic and inflammatory stress. A 10-minute recovery intervention was applied immediately post-exercise. Blood lactate, interleukin-6 (IL-6), creatine kinase (CK), perceived muscle pain (VAS), and knee flexion range of motion (ROM) were assessed pre-exercise, post-exercise, and post-recovery. Data were analyzed using ANCOVA (post-exercise as a covariate), one-way ANOVA of change scores, and linear mixed-effects models (p < 0.05). Results. No baseline differences were observed between groups (p ≥ 0.724). Significant Group × Time interactions were detected for lactate, IL-6, CK, VAS, and ROM (p ≤ 0.003; η²p = 0.20–0.28), indicating distinct recovery trajectories. After adjustment for post-exercise values, SC showed lower post-recovery lactate (5.18 mmol·L⁻¹) compared with CON (8.74 mmol·L⁻¹; p < 0.001; d = 0.96) and SS (7.01 mmol·L⁻¹; p = 0.004; d = 0.71). IL-6 and CK were significantly reduced in SC compared with CON (p ≤ 0.003; d = 0.82–0.88). Perceived pain was markedly lower in SC (2.4 cm) than in CON (5.6 cm; p < 0.001; d = 1.02). ROM improved most in SC (Δ +3.2°), exceeding SS and CON (p ≤ 0.039). Change-score analyses confirmed a greater recovery magnitude in SC across all outcomes (η² = 0.33–0.44). Conclusions. A sequenced stretch–massage protocol produces superior short-term metabolic, inflammatory, and perceptual recovery compared with passive rest. It also demonstrates moderate advantages over single-modality strategies. This approach offers a practical and physiologically supported recovery method for intermittent sport settings.