Biology of Sport
pISSN 0860-021X    eISSN 2083-1862
Archival Issues
Volume 34, 2017
Volume 33, 2016
Volume 32, 2015
Volume 31, 2014
Volume 30, 2013
Volume 29, 2012
Volume 28, 2011
Volume 27, 2010
Volume 26, 2009
Volume 25, 2008
Volume 24, 2007
Volume 23, 2006
Volume 22, 2005
Volume 21, 2004
Volume 20, 2003
Archival Issues 1984-1998
Search
Newsletter
Information for Authors
Special Information
 » 
Journal Abstract
 
DIFFERENT RECOVERY METHODS AND MUSCLE PERFORMANCE AFTER EXHAUSTING EXERCISE: COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF ELECTRICAL MUSCLE STIMULATION AND MASSAGE
Salih Pinar, Fatih Kaya, Bilal Bicer, Mustafa Said Erzeybek, Hasan Birol Cotuk
Biol Sport 2012; 29(4):269-275
ICID: 1019664
Article type: Original article
IC™ Value: 10.15
Abstract provided by Publisher
 
In this study we assessed the influence of the three different recovery interventions massage (MSG), electrical muscle stimulation (EMS), and passive rest (PR) on lactate disappearance and muscle recovery after exhausting exercise bouts. Twelve healthy male sport students participated in the study. They attended the laboratory on five test days. After measurement of ·VO2max and a baseline Wingate test (WGb), the three recovery interventions were tested in random counterbalanced order. High intensity exercise, which consisted of six exhausting exercise bouts (interspersed with active recovery), was followed by MSG, EMS or PR application (24 minutes); then the final Wingate test (WGf) was performed. Lactate, heart rate, peak and mean power, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and total quality of recovery (TQR) were recorded. In WGf mean power was significantly higher than in WGb for all three recovery modalities (MSG 6.29%, EMS 5.33%, PR 4.84% increase, p<0.05), but no significant differences in mean and peak power were observed between the three recovery modes (p>0.05). The heart rate response and the changes in blood lactate concentration were identical in all three interventions during the entire protocol (p=0.817, p=0.493, respectively). RPE and TQR scores were also not different among the three interventions (p>0.05). These results provide further evidence that MSG and EMS are not more effective than PR in the process of recovery from high intensity exercise.

ICID 1019664

DOI 10.5604/20831862.1019664
 
FULL TEXT 428 KB


Related articles
  • in IndexCopernicus™
         Electromyostimulation [0 related records]
         Massage [62 related records]
         recovery [4 related records]
         muscle performance [1 related records]


  •  

    Copyright © Biology of Sport  2017
    Page created by Index Copernicus Ltd. All Rights reserved.