I don’t think there is an impressive amount of scientific data out there that demonstrates that pneumatic compression is that effective, enough to spend $500-$2000 on a product. Based on scan of the available studies and my own reading, I see sleep continuously cited as the most effective recovery method (given this is when human growth hormone is produced during deep sleep), a well as post-workout carb/protein loading (which accelerates tissue repair via amino acids and replaces lost glycogen in muscles). Points in case, Joe Friel in “Fast After 50” talks about recovery methods as well and confirms this (based on a survey of the research), that the only tried and true approach still appears to be sleep. I just finished listening to a podcast interview with Katrin Davidsdottir, who has won the world cross-fit championships twice in a row, and mentions sleep over and over again in the context of recovery, fanatically so. We are talking 9 hours a day, even more during competition [she also uses WhOOP to help manage her sleep).
Massage shows promising results, higher than compression garments, cryogenics, immersion, etc. Another study shows that pneumatic compression is more effective than prolonged compression sleeve garments usage. Moreover, I’d be very skeptical and beware results cited by the actual manufacturers of recovery devices (biased), or individuals (anecdotal and statistically insignificant, not to mention subject to placebo effect).
Just a few scientific studies cited below:
Results: Active recovery, massage, compression garments, immersion, contrast water therapy, and cryotherapy induced a small to large decrease (−2.26 < g < −0.40) in the magnitude of DOMS, while there was no change for the other methods. Massage was found to be the most powerful technique for recovering from DOMS and fatigue. In terms of muscle damage and inflammatory markers, we observed an overall moderate decrease in creatine kinase [SMD (95% CI) = −0.37 (−0.58 to −0.16), I2 = 40.15%] and overall small decreases in interleukin-6 [SMD (95% CI) = −0.36 (−0.60 to −0.12), I2 = 0%] and C-reactive protein [SMD (95% CI) = −0.38 (−0.59 to−0.14), I2 = 39%]. The most powerful techniques for reducing inflammation were massage and cold exposure.
Conclusion : Massage seems to be the most effective method for reducing DOMS and perceived fatigue. Perceived fatigue can be effectively managed using compression techniques, such as compression garments, massage, or water immersion.
"Acute Effects of Peristaltic Pulse Dynamic Compression on Recovery: Ki" by Timothy McInnis
The minimal effects of NormaTec on recovery from a weightlifting training session demonstrated in this study suggest that NormaTec recovery system does not provide substantial benefits following clean pulls from the floor. However, it is possible that NormaTec may be more effective following a greater level of eccentric damage or a test of strength endurance.
No significant differences in PkP, AP, and FI were observed. However, BLa was significantly lower at 25 and 35 minutes of recovery (8.91 ± 3.12 vs. 10.66 ± 3.44 mmol/L [P=0.021] and 6.44 ± 2.14 vs. 7.89 ± 2.37 mmol/L [P=0.006] for EPC vs. sham, respectively). Application of EPC during recovery may be a viable alternative when “inactive” recovery is desirable.
"The effect of intermittent pneumatic compression on the management of " by Ashley Kay Lindahl
Intermittent pneumatic compression was not effective at preventing pain associated with DOMS when applied immediately after exercise for 30 minutes.
There were no significant differences between trials for blood lactate concentrations or TQR. The current study reports that ISPC (intermittent sequential pneumatic compression) was not effective in improving recovery between a cycling and running bout in well-trained triathletes.