Unaccustomed exercise consisting of eccentric (i.e., lengthening) muscle contractions often results in muscle damage characterized by ultrastructural alterations in muscle tissue, clinical signs, and symptoms (e.g., reduced muscle strength and range of motion, increased muscle soreness and swelling, efflux of myocellular proteins). The time course of recovery following exercise-induced muscle damage depends on the extent of initial muscle damage, which in turn is influenced by the intensity and duration of exercise, joint angle/muscle length, and muscle groups used during exercise. The effects of these factors on muscle strength, soreness, and swelling are well characterized. By contrast, much less is known about how they affect intramuscular inflammation and molecular aspects of muscle adaptation/remodeling. Although inflammation has historically been viewed as detrimental for recovery from exercise, it is now generally accepted that inflammatory responses, if tightly regulated, are integral to muscle repair and regeneration. Animal studies have revealed that various cell types, including neutrophils, macrophages, mast cells, eosinophils, CD8 and T-regulatory lymphocytes, fibro-adipogenic progenitors, and pericytes help to facilitate muscle tissue regeneration. However, more research is required to determine whether these cells respond to exercise-induced muscle damage. A large body of research has investigated the efficacy of physicotherapeutic, pharmacological, and nutritional interventions for reducing the signs and symptoms of exercise-induced muscle damage, with mixed results. More research is needed to examine if/how these treatments influence inflammation and muscle remodeling during recovery from exercise.

The commercial market for technologies to monitor and improve personal health and sports performance is ever expanding. A wide range of smart watches, bands, garments, and patches with embedded sensors, small portable devices and mobile applications now exist to record and provide users with feedback on many different physical performance variables. These variables include cardiorespiratory function, movement patterns, sweat analysis, tissue oxygenation, sleep, emotional state, and changes in cognitive function following concussion. In this review, we have summarized the features and evaluated the characteristics of a cross-section of technologies for health and sports performance according to what the technology is claimed to do, whether it has been validated and is reliable, and if it is suitable for general consumer use. Consumers who are choosing new technology should consider whether it (1) produces desirable (or non-desirable) outcomes, (2) has been developed based on real-world need, and (3) has been tested and proven effective in applied studies in different settings. Among the technologies included in this review, more than half have not been validated through independent research. Only 5% of the technologies have been formally validated. Around 10% of technologies have been developed for and used in research. The value of such technologies for consumer use is debatable, however, because they may require extra time to set up and interpret the data they produce. Looking to the future, the rapidly expanding market of health and sports performance technology has much to offer consumers. To create a competitive advantage, companies producing health and performance technologies should consult with consumers to identify real-world need, and invest in research to prove the effectiveness of their products. To get the best value, consumers should carefully select such products, not only based on their personal needs, but also according to the strength of supporting evidence and effectiveness of the products.

The notion that prolonged, intense exercise causes an “open window” of immunodepression during recovery after exercise is well accepted. Repeated exercise bouts or intensified training without sufficient recovery may increase the risk of illness. However, except for salivary IgA, clear and consistent markers of this immunodepression remain elusive. Exercise increases circulating neutrophil and monocyte counts and reduces circulating lymphocyte count during recovery. This lymphopenia results from preferential egress of lymphocyte subtypes with potent effector functions [e.g., natural killer (NK) cells, γδ T cells, and CD8⁺T cells]. These lymphocytes most likely translocate to peripheral sites of potential antigen encounter (e.g., lungs and gut). This redeployment of effector lymphocytes is an integral part of the physiological stress response to exercise. Current knowledge about changes in immune function during recovery from exercise is derived from assessment at the cell population level of isolated cells ex vivo or in blood. This assessment can be biased by large changes in the distribution of immune cells between blood and peripheral tissues during and after exercise. Some evidence suggests that reduced immune cell function in vitro may coincide with changes in vivo and rates of illness after exercise, but more work is required to substantiate this notion. Among the various nutritional strategies and physical therapies that athletes use to recover from exercise, carbohydrate supplementation is the most effective for minimizing immune disturbances during exercise recovery. Sleep is an important aspect of recovery, but more research is needed to determine how sleep disruption influences the immune system of athletes.