Research on air compression boots after exercise hasn't shown a clear effect on muscle performance.[1][2][3] In a 2026 trial in elite youth soccer players, one air compression session did no better than placebo on any recovery measure.[3] Most studies are small and unblinded.[1][2] We couldn't find good-quality trials showing that compression boots change cellulite (search of 5 October 2026).[4]
- Performance: reviews found no clear effect on jump height or muscle function after exercise.[1][2]
- Few placebo tests: only 6 of 17 studies in one review compared air compression with a placebo.[1]
- Mostly men: in another review, 274 of 322 participants were men.[2]
- Not tested at home: the trials on this page tested single sessions after hard exercise, in a lab or at a sports event, not everyday use at home.[3][5][6][7]
What do compression boots actually do?
Compression boots, as our compression boot guides explain, are leg sleeves with air bladders that inflate and deflate in cycles, so you feel a rhythmic squeeze and release.[1] Some inflate one section at a time, in sequence, which is why "sequential" appears in some study titles.[1][5][6]
Whether that squeeze changes anything researchers can measure is what the studies below test, mostly in athletes and active adults after hard exercise.[1] Compression boots aren't right for everyone: our guide explains who should check with a GP before using compression boots.
What does the research show?
Most studies follow one pattern: hard exercise, then air compression or a comparison such as rest or a placebo, then recovery measures over the next hours or days.[1] Here's the short version.
| What researchers measured | What they found |
|---|---|
| Performance and muscle function: jumps, runs, time trials and strength tests | No clear effect in reviews or in most trials.[1][2][3][5][7] One small 2026 trial found better scores than a sham session on two muscle tests, but not in a time trial the next day.[6] |
| Soreness and fatigue (mostly self-rated) | Small differences in some reviews, overall or at some time points.[1][2][8] No difference at 24 h in another review.[9] In trials: better self-rated scores than a sham session in cyclists;[6] lower fatigue scores straight after one session, but not from the next day, in ultramarathon runners;[7] no difference from passive rest after squats,[5] or from placebo in soccer players.[3] |
| Blood markers of muscle damage | Mixed: a 2025 review found a small difference in one marker.[8] A 2024 review found no significant difference at 24, 48 or 72 h,[1] a 2022 review found none overall,[2] and neither did a 2026 trial.[3] |
The reviews
| Review | Who was included | Main results | Run by, funding and limits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maia and colleagues, 2024 | 17 studies; 319 healthy, active adults and athletes | Muscle function: no significant difference at any time point. Pain and soreness measures: lower than comparison groups at 0–2 h and 96 h; not significant at 24, 48 or 72 h.[1] | University of Maia, Portugal; funded by Portugal's Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). Only 6 studies used a placebo, and most samples were small.[1] |
| Wiśniowski and colleagues, 2022 | 12 studies; 322 healthy volunteers, 274 men and 48 women | Jump height: no significant difference. Soreness: a small, statistically significant difference overall; at single time points, only at 48 h. The authors said pressotherapy "should not be recommended as the basic method of recovery".[2] | Józef Piłsudski University of Physical Education in Warsaw, Poland; no external funding. The review reports an average study size of 25; the studies used different devices and protocols.[2] |
| Albillos-Almaraz and colleagues, 2025 | 27 studies; 554 healthy adults | Small differences in soreness and pain scores and in one blood marker of muscle damage; no significant effect on the other measures. The authors wrote that effects on recovery "remain inconclusive".[8] | University of Oviedo, Spain, with co-authors elsewhere; funding not stated in the abstract we could read. Exercise protocols and measuring tools varied.[8] |
| Canez and colleagues, 2025 | 19 studies; 672 healthy adults, across three techniques | For air compression, the abstract reports one result: no reduction in muscle soreness 24 h after the session compared with control (moderate-certainty evidence).[9] | Federal University of Pelotas, Brazil; grants from the university and Brazil's national research council (CNPq). It mixes light therapy, electrical muscle stimulation and air compression, so only part of it is about air compression.[9] |
The trials
| Trial | Who took part | Main results | Run by, funding and limits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maia and colleagues, 2026: placebo-controlled | 23 elite under-19 male soccer players; 42 post-match recovery sessions | One session after a match, compared with an unlabelled hydrating cream that players were told was a new recovery cream: no difference on jump height, a muscle fatigue test, a blood marker of muscle damage, or self-rated fatigue and soreness, up to 48 h.[3] | University of Maia and Sporting Clube de Braga, Portugal; supported by an FCT doctoral grant held by the first author. A company, Sausport, provided the devices, and the authors declared no competing interests. Small, male players only.[3] |
| Maia and colleagues, 2026: sham-controlled | 21 male road cyclists, each tested with both options | After a hard time trial: better scores than a sham session on self-rated recovery, soreness and fatigue, and on two muscle tests; no difference in a 4-minute time trial 24 h later.[6] | The same Portuguese research group; funding not stated in the abstract we could read. Small, men only.[6] |
| Northey and colleagues, 2016: Australia | 12 strength-trained men, each tested with every option | After heavy squats: no difference from passive rest on any measure, including self-rated recovery and soreness, thigh strength and jump height, up to 24 h.[5] | University of Canberra and the Australian Institute of Sport, with the University of Waikato, New Zealand; funding not stated in the abstract we could read. Very small, men only.[5] |
| Hoffman and colleagues, 2016 | 72 finishers of the 161-km Western States Endurance Run, USA | Straight after one session: lower overall muscular fatigue scores than rest. From the next day to day 7: no difference between groups on any measure, and 400-metre run times didn't differ.[7] | Led by the research director of the race's research foundation, the registered sponsor. Not blinded; one session per runner.[7][10] |
To see how air compression sits alongside massage guns, foam rolling, ice baths and sauna, read our guide to recovery tools compared.
How do you read a compression boot study?
Five questions separate a useful study from a catchy headline.
- Was there a placebo or a sham? You can feel the squeeze, so a fair comparison is hard to design. In the 2024 review, about a third of studies reported blinding participants, and none reported blinding the people taking the measurements.[1] The 2026 trials compared air compression with a cream or with a sham session, which imitates the real one.[3][6]
- How many people, and who? One review reports an average study size of 25 people.[2] Results from small groups of athletes may not apply to other people.
- Which device and settings? Devices, pressures, session lengths and timing differed between studies,[2] so one study's result doesn't automatically apply to another device.
- What was measured? How people rate their recovery and how they perform don't always move together.[6][7] Check which kind of measure a headline is based on: the tables above show which is which.
- Who paid, and who supplied the devices? Check the funding and competing-interests statements, and look for who supplied the devices: the trials table above shows this where it's stated.
Is it the same as pressotherapy?
The words overlap, but the devices behind them aren't all the same.[2] Here's what each term means.
What is pressotherapy?
Pressotherapy is a general name for treatments that apply air pressure to the body through inflatable garments: a 2022 review of pressotherapy after exercise, for example, included several types of pneumatic compression, most often IPC.[2]
What is intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC)?
IPC is the name researchers use for cycles of inflation and deflation of air bladders, usually around the legs.[1] Clinical IPC devices are medical devices;[11] RecLegs is a consumer product. Results from clinical IPC in patients can't be assumed to apply to consumer boots used at home, and none of the studies on this page tested the boots we sell.
What about cellulite?
We searched for studies of cellulite and air compression, pressotherapy or compression clothing on 5 October 2026, and checked again on 7 October 2026 in the Europe PMC research database.[4] The 7 October search found 3 records, and none was a controlled trial that measured cellulite in people using air compression boots or pressotherapy.[4] That's a gap in the research, so we make no cellulite claim for any compression boots. Our guide to compression boots and cellulite explains what turned up.
Quick answers
Why do studies of compression boots disagree?
They test different devices, exercise and timing, and measure different things.[2][8] A 2025 review of 27 studies concluded that the evidence doesn't allow definitive recommendations.[8]
Have Australian researchers tested compression boots?
Yes. In a trial from the University of Canberra and the Australian Institute of Sport, 12 strength-trained men used air compression after heavy squats, and it made no difference compared with passive rest on any measure up to 24 hours.[5]
Have compression boots been studied over the long term?
Not in the trials on this page. They followed people for 24 hours to 7 days after a session,[3][5][6][7] and none tested regular use over weeks or months.
Sources
11 sources
- Maia F, Nakamura FY, Sarmento H, Marcelino R, Ribeiro J. Effects of lower-limb intermittent pneumatic compression on sports recovery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biology of Sport. 2024;41(4):263–275. Funding: Portugal's Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT); the authors declare no conflicting interests. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11475002
- Wiśniowski P, Cieśliński M, Jarocka M, Kasiak PS, Makaruk B, Pawliczek W, Wiecha S. The effect of pressotherapy on performance and recovery in the management of delayed onset muscle soreness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022;11(8):2077. Funding: no external funding; the authors declare no conflict of interest. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9028309
- Maia F, Tito S, Correia M, Nakamura FY, Ribeiro J. Intermittent pneumatic compression does not improve post-match neuromuscular, biochemical or perceptual recovery in international-level youth soccer players: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2026;18:126. Funding: Portugal's Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), reference 2022.09686.BD, a doctoral grant held by the first author. Compression devices provided by Sausport – Saúde e Desporto (acknowledgements); the authors declare no competing interests. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12983609
- RECVIA team. Literature search for studies of cellulite and air compression, pressotherapy or compression clothing, 5 October 2026, checked again on 7 October 2026 with the Europe PMC query linked here (titles and abstracts): 3 records, none a controlled trial that measured cellulite in people using air compression boots or pressotherapy. They were a 2009 letter (PMID 19251373), a 2023 pilot study of a compression garment, completed by 18 women, with no comparison group (PMID 37750084), and a 2013 trial in 30 women comparing two compression stocking fabrics, one on each leg (PMID 23786487). europepmc.org/search (query as run)
- Northey JM, Rattray B, Argus CK, Etxebarria N, Driller MW. Vascular occlusion and sequential compression for recovery after resistance exercise. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2016;30(2):533–539. Funding not stated in the abstract. doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001080
- Maia F, Barreira J, Tito S, Nakamura FY, Ribeiro J. Effects of intermittent sequential pneumatic compression on functional, biochemical, and perceptual recovery markers in trained cyclists: a randomized sham-controlled crossover trial. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 2026;21(10):1107–1114. Funding not stated in the abstract. doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2025-0397
- Hoffman MD, Badowski N, Chin J, Stuempfle KJ. A randomized controlled trial of massage and pneumatic compression for ultramarathon recovery. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2016;46(5):320–326. Funding not stated in the abstract. doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2016.6455
- Albillos-Almaraz L, Cavero-Redondo I, Rodríguez MÁ, Fares R, Crespo I, del Valle M, Olmedillas H. From fads to facts: a systematic review and meta-analysis of intermittent pneumatic compression therapy for muscle recovery. Strength and Conditioning Journal. 2025;47(4):450–464. Funding not stated in the abstract. doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000892
- Canez MS, da Silva LI, Ferreira GD, de Araújo FX, Luza LP. Effects of photobiomodulation, intermittent pneumatic compression and neuromuscular electrical stimulation on muscle recovery: systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies. 2025;44:570–584. Grants listed: Federal University of Pelotas; Brazil's National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2025.06.021
- ClinicalTrials.gov. Investigation of popular recovery techniques for ultramarathon recovery (NCT02530190). Lead sponsor: Western States Endurance Run Research Foundation; principal investigator: its director of research; masking: none. Accessed 7 October 2026. clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02530190
- Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG), search for "compression unit, intermittent": 12 results, all medical devices. Searched 7 October 2026. tga.gov.au/resources/artg