Thanks for the links! The SoC study should be dismissed:
http://docs.google.com/...lmZjY0MDM3&hl=en
The sample size of 21 is too small considering the non-conclusive results, and non-blind design. An error or contamination regarding one person could have produced the published results. It also only tested compression, not graduated compression, nor compression amount.
The other study you point to:
( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC2727767/)
Identified clots as asymptomatic, so there’s no real problem that compression socks could possibly correct.
A 20-30mmHg compression amount suggestions for bed-stricken patients seems irrelevant to a trained athlete’s situation. Regardless, the 2009 study published in The Lancet and European Stroke Conference in Stockholm:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60941-7/abstract
showed graduated compression stockings do not prevent blood clots in stroke patients.
The Lancet study by Rodney Hughes et al found compression stockings don’t prevent DVT during air travel. Fear sells, but there’s mounting evidence that compression doesn’t solve a problem that doesn’t exist because the tiny travel blood clots are asymptomatic anyway and dissolve on their own.
The 2006 Skins study you link may not have shown recovery improvement, but good scientific methodology doesn’t bury a study just because it doesn’t sell product. Unfortunately, that study had a sample of 11 people, so it seems weak.
Few people invoke money-back guarantees, even when a product is useless or harmful. Despite some of the wacky gear in the Retro TT stuff thread, our time and lives are more valuable than committing to random trial and error. You write “athlete feedback is really key”? No! Data is key! Evidence that compression aids performance or recovery is the only thing that should sell even one compression sock.