Skins compression tights

E@gle.

These seem to be getting very popular so thinkin of getting myself a pair of these anyone have any experience??

Will be using these for recovery as sometimes the legs do be a bit sore after a spin.

RobFowl

Very little evidence for their benefits and at at the risk of name dropping I asked David Millar if they were any good, he said he used them because he was paid to !!!!!

Home:Ballyhoura

I read somewhere that they lose their compression after a certain amount of time and need to be replaced to get the same effect! They are not exactly cheap to replace if you use them often...also, they aren't bib-tights which I much prefer! Just remembered you are looking at the recovery ones so bib-tights aren't necessary! Good luck

IM0

well if they are getting popular then that means they MUST be good right?
now where did I put my magic beans?

NeilMcEoigheann

friend of mine swears by them

tunney

RobFowl wrote: »

Very little evidence for their benefits and at at the risk of name dropping I asked David Millar if they were any good, he said he used them because he was paid to !!!!!

You mean besides the independent research there's very little evidence?

They do work. But the improvements in recovery are less than 5% and are only really relevant if you're training multiple times a day every day.

CheGuedara

I've a compression baselayer top and while it's comfortable and warm I couldn't say it make a whole pile of difference to my cycling outside of being more comfortable on the chilly days

tunney

CheGuedara wrote: »

I've a compression baselayer top and while it's comfortable and warm I couldn't say it make a whole pile of difference to my cycling outside of being more comfortable on the chilly days

While there is research to back up the use of compression tights there is absolutely nothing to suggest that compression tops are of any use recovery wise.

RobFowl

tunney wrote: »

You mean besides the independent research there's very little evidence?

They do work. But the improvements in recovery are less than 5% and are only really relevant if you're training multiple times a day every day.

If you mean this evidence (not independent as was funded at least in part by skinz)
http://www.skins.net/ie/en/Research/Studies
I think you'll find only 4 of the 13 works quoted were actually published.
All have extremely small numbers of participants.
Of the 4 that were were published one showed they stopped ankle swelling during flights !
The rest showed no significant improvement over other recovery strategies

stuf

RobFowl wrote: »

Very little evidence for their benefits and at at the risk of name dropping I asked David Millar if they were any good, he said he used them because he was paid to !!!!!

strange that skins used to claim that they didn't sponsor anyone to wear their products and that overpaid sportstars only used them because they were so good.

Now, was that not working out or did David Millar mean that his team required him to wear them because they thought the benefit would be worth it in the same way that every sportsman in the world needs to jump into a wheely bin full of ice at the end of their working day?

tunney

RobFowl wrote: »

If you mean this evidence (not independent as was funded at least in part by skinz)
http://www.skins.net/ie/en/Research/Studies
I think you'll find only 4 of the 13 works quoted were actually published.
All have extremely small numbers of participants.
Of the 4 that were were published one showed they stopped ankle swelling during flights !
The rest showed no significant improvement over other recovery strategies

No I don't. A more generic study only in NZ into compression tights. Will fish out.

t0mm

While there is not a hugh amount of evidence for their benefits it is all positive, where is the evidence that they don't work?

dcRoadie

hello,

I've got a pair of these skins tights (Crimbo present). I've ran in them and have found that they do actually reduce the vibration of the muscles in the legs and after say a sprint or hill repeats session in them I tend to feel less sore the day after. Seriously!

The downside is the abuse you get from general public whilst wearing them, as they are very, very, tight.

dc

StudentC

There's lots of mixed evidence for and against compression gear, as there is for anything performance enhancing / applied / new in sport. The fact that there's so much commercial interest makes it difficult to interpret.

Somebody mentioned a New Zealand study above, that's one which showed some beneficial effects as a recovery intervention in rugby players. There's a heap of research out there for the recovery aspect of them, alot of it is looking more at short duration exercise, repeated sprints and stuff like that. There's new papers being published every week pretty much. Overall, the results are fairly positive in favour of the compression gear (tights, very little evidence for upper body gear, and not much for shorts)

However, as far as I know there's not so much strong evidence for benefits during exercise.

They do lose their compression, it depends on the usage but you certainly won't get years out of them, more like months - a year. Don't just chuck them in the washing machine, they'll get stretched and all the compressive qualities will be gone. Put them in a laundry bag and wash them in that (or even a pillow case).

Lastly, anecdotally (I worked with somebody who was a specialist in recovery and repeated exercise bouts), the Skins stuff isn't great - something to do with whatever type of weave they have. I'm not sure about the canterbury and Nike stuff - I'd imagine it could be similar. One good brand is 2XU, they specialize in triathlon and compression gear and have developed their own fabrics, fairly different from the other companies.

Anyways, sorry for the ramble, my 2cents worth. I very nearly started a PhD looking at compression tights in athletes, hence the interest.

Home:Ballyhoura

Home:Ballyhoura wrote: »

also, they aren't bib-tights which I much prefer!

Just saw on CRC there in the "new products" section thats the Skins are now available in bib-shorts for €146 and bib-tights for €169 (both mens and ladies). Not cheap :eek:, especially if they lose their compression!

tunney

StudentC wrote: »

There's lots of mixed evidence for and against compression gear, as there is for anything performance enhancing / applied / new in sport. The fact that there's so much commercial interest makes it difficult to interpret.

Somebody mentioned a New Zealand study above, that's one which showed some beneficial effects as a recovery intervention in rugby players. There's a heap of research out there for the recovery aspect of them, alot of it is looking more at short duration exercise, repeated sprints and stuff like that. There's new papers being published every week pretty much. Overall, the results are fairly positive in favour of the compression gear (tights, very little evidence for upper body gear, and not much for shorts)

However, as far as I know there's not so much strong evidence for benefits during exercise.

They do lose their compression, it depends on the usage but you certainly won't get years out of them, more like months - a year. Don't just chuck them in the washing machine, they'll get stretched and all the compressive qualities will be gone. Put them in a laundry bag and wash them in that (or even a pillow case).

Lastly, anecdotally (I worked with somebody who was a specialist in recovery and repeated exercise bouts), the Skins stuff isn't great - something to do with whatever type of weave they have. I'm not sure about the canterbury and Nike stuff - I'd imagine it could be similar. One good brand is 2XU, they specialize in triathlon and compression gear and have developed their own fabrics, fairly different from the other companies.

The study I was talking about was about 40km TTs not rugby

Also I've found the 2xu stuff terrible, the compression gradient is going the wrong way and the build quality is, excuse the pun, pants.

jdt101

Those Skins bibshorts are expensive. I have a pair of Assos shorts I bought last year, can't say enough about how good they are.(especially with the chamois cream) Link: http://www.slanecycles.com/productdetail.aspx?id=3666&subid=414&catid=69

Winter tights. Again same great fit, with good compression. Link: http://www.slanecycles.com/productdetail.aspx?id=928&subid=312&catid=69

Price seemed high when I purchased, but the comfort and quality it will soon be forgotten. I wash at 30C as stated by label, the fit is still like new after 12 months.

Jawgap

I got a top and it's grand. I don't think it makes my cycle faster or recover quicker, but I've found it very comfortable as a base layer.

It wicks moisture very effectively.

I tried wearing it for a recent rugby match, but the slagging wasn't worth it, so I'll not be doing that again!!

scottreynolds

From memory there two types of compressions wear. The first is wore during excercise to stop muscles from 'flapping', transfer heat and moisture, and reduce injury.

The second, Skins do these, is primarily designed for recovery. The compressions pants are get tighter from the top to the bottom of the leg to encourage muscles to exponge latic acid and blood.

Each is designed for a different purpose.

(I could be wrong)

tunney

scottreynolds wrote: »

From memory there two types of compressions wear. The first is wore during excercise to stop muscles from 'flapping', transfer heat and moisture, and reduce injury.

The second, Skins do these, is primarily designed for recovery. The compressions pants are get tighter from the top to the bottom of the leg to encourage muscles to exponge latic acid and blood.

Each is designed for a different purpose.

(I could be wrong)

Do you work for 2xu? Cause thats the way they do the compression as well Which is the wrong way

Amazingly studies have shown that the removal of lactic acid is *slower* while wearing compression leggings but overall recovery increases

copacetic

Have a pair of these tights, imo they are a big help to recovery, but mostly after running rather than cycling as I find generally I'm a LOT sorer the next day after a hard run than a hard cycle.

I wear them afterward and sometime to bed and find they work better than the ice baths that a lot of people swear by. Then again a lot of people say ice baths don't work either when they do imo.

scottreynolds

tunney wrote: »

Do you work for 2xu? Cause thats the way they do the compression as well Which is the wrong way

Amazingly studies have shown that the removal of lactic acid is *slower* while wearing compression leggings but overall recovery increases

Okay -- so its doesn't work but it makes recovery faster -- I hope you see the irony of that.

copacetic wrote: »

I find generally I'm a LOT sorer the next day after a hard run than a hard cycle.

Pedal harder longer faster.

tunney

scottreynolds wrote: »

Okay -- so its doesn't work but it makes recovery faster -- I hope you see the irony of that.

Sorry - my point was that they work but not by the mechanism of speeding up recovery of lactic acid.

Jawgap

copacetic wrote: »

Have a pair of these tights, imo they are a big help to recovery, but mostly after running rather than cycling as I find generally I'm a LOT sorer the next day after a hard run than a hard cycle.

I wear them afterward and sometime to bed and find they work better than the ice baths that a lot of people swear by. Then again a lot of people say ice baths don't work either when they do imo.

Maybe because running is weight-bearing and more likely to cause muscle soreness by way of micro-tears in the muscle fibres? (Just a theory) Ice-baths probably limit or reduce the inflammation associated with the micro-tears, but can they stop your body producing lactic acid?

Maybe they can slow it's production, but in slowing metabolism maybe they also reduce the rate at whch it is purged from muscles.

Anyway, my Skins feel comfortable, and keep me warm and dry, so from that point I'd recommend them. I can't say they've made me run faster, jump higher or cycle longer.

RobFowl

scottreynolds wrote: »

Okay -- so its doesn't work but it makes recovery faster -- I hope you see the irony of that.

Alot of this depends on how you measure recovery. This is very difficult thing to do properly. Alot of the rugby based studies measured it as repeated sprint performance on the same and subsequent days. Various other ones measure subjective feelings of muscle soreness. Some measure lactic acid levels which as Tunney points out may be a totlal red herring in terms of "recovery" although it is a good measure of fitness in terms of how fast you clear it. There is alot of talk of "inflammation" and reducing this. There are medical and sports scientists who feels inflammation is nessecary to allow proper muscle repair after exercise.
Not sure this has cleared anything up but be wary of and scientific claims made by product manafacturers.

coggs

tunney wrote: »

The study I was talking about was about 40km TTs not rugby

Also I've found the 2xu stuff terrible, the compression gradient is going the wrong way and the build quality is, excuse the pun, pants.

I think its how important good recovery is to you . I am regulary , but also have cerbral palsy so recovery after training for my legs is my upmost concern . I have tried many recovery systems , i have been using recovery tights for approx 2 years now . I started with 2xu and now swear by the skins stuff . After heavy sessions i actually sleep in them and they do in my humble speed up the recovery process .But it really depends on how good your recovery plan is !

StudentC

tunney wrote: »

Do you work for 2xu? Cause thats the way they do the compression as well Which is the wrong way

I'm pretty sure that 2xU tights go from highest compression at the ankle (around 20mmHg IIRC) to lowest at the thigh (~10mmHg) - I'm not 100% sure on the exact figures, but that's the direction anyway.

Regarding the NZ study you mentioned Tunney - my apologies, the one that immediatly sprung to my mind was the Gill et al rugby one, not the 40km TT one, sorry.

Somebody mentioned the point about what measures you use for evaluating 'recovery' I think that's the key thing. Everybody is using different stuff at the moment - inflammatory markers, pyschological measures, performance measures etc etc, and they can all be valid in their own way, if applied appropriately. It just makes different studies hard to compare. But sure that's what makes science fun

I'm starting to think that with alot of recovery research - compression, cold water immersion, contrast therapy etc, it might all come down to a 'responders and non-responders' thing, similar to various other aspects of performance science. Compared to more general exercise science (for health, or sport in more 'normal' populations), the improvements to be gained from all these interventions are small in % terms, but massive in 'places' terms - i.e improving a TT result by 10 seconds won't be statistically significant, but if it's the difference between 1st and 2nd, that's what matters! So regardless of whether a really well-designed, well-executed research study does or doesn't 'prove' that an intervention works - if it definitely works for an individual athlete, they're going to use it.

(I'm not working or researching in the area at the moment, just interested!)