Randomized controlled trial2015

Comparison of the effects of electrical stimulation and cold-water immersion on muscle soreness after resistance exercise

Jajtner AR, Hoffman JR, Gonzalez AM, Worts PR, Fragala MS, Stout JR

Journal of sport rehabilitation · 21 citations

Review labels

Funding not disclosed

Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.

How it was studied

Design
Randomized controlled trial (indexed by PubMed)
Studied in
People
Main outcome
Health markers and function

Who paid for it

Funding
Funding not disclosed

Publication

Published
2014-03-12 · J Sport Rehabil · vol. 24 · issue 2 · pp. 99–108
Publisher
Human Kinetics
Cited
37 citations · more than 92% of similar papers · 3.4× the field average
Impact
Top 10% most cited in its field
References
28 works
Access
Open access (repository copy)
Research areas
Exercise and Physiological Responses · Cardiovascular and exercise physiology · Sports Performance and Training
Keywords
Squat, Medicine, Context (archaeology), Resistance training, Stimulation, Physical therapy, Physical medicine and rehabilitation, Internal medicine
MeSH
humans, water, immersion, electric stimulation, recovery of function, adult, male, cold temperature, resistance training, young adult, myalgia, outcome assessment, health care

6 authors

From US

  • Adam R. JajtnerUniversity of Central Florida
  • Jay R. Hoffman
  • Adam M. Gonzalez
  • Phillip R. Worts
  • Maren Susan Fragala
  • Jeffrey R. Stout

Abstract

Context

Resistance training is a common form of exercise for competitive and recreational athletes. Enhancing recovery from resistance training may improve the muscle-remodeling processes, stimulating a faster return to peak performance.

Objective

To examine the effects of 2 different recovery modalities, neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and cold-water immersion (CWI), on performance and biochemical and ultrasonographic measures.

Participants

Thirty resistance-trained men (23.1 ± 2.9 y, 175.2 ± 7.1 cm, 82.1 ± 8.4 kg) were randomly assigned to NMES, CWI, or control (CON).

Design and setting

All participants completed a high-volume lower-body resistance-training workout on d 1 and returned to the human performance laboratory 24 (24H) and 48 h (48 H) postexercise for follow-up testing.

Measures

Blood samples were obtained preexercise (PRE) and immediately (IP), 30 min (30 P), 24 h (24H), and 48 h (48 H) post. Subjects were examined for performance changes in the squat exercise (total repetitions and average power per repetition), biomarkers of inflammation, and changes in cross-sectional area and echo intensity (EI) of the rectus femoris (RF) and vastus lateralis muscles.

Results

No differences between groups were observed in the number of repetitions (P = .250; power: P = .663). Inferential-based analysis indicated that increases in C-reactive protein concentrations were likely increased by a greater magnitude after CWI compared with CON, while NMES possibly decreased more than CON from IP to 24H. Increases in interleukin-10 concentrations between IP and 30 P were likely greater in CWI than NMES but not different from CON. Inferential-based analysis of RF EI indicated a likely decrease for CWI between IP and 48 H. No other differences between groups were noted in any other muscle-architecture measures.

Conclusions

Results indicated that CWI induced greater increases in pro- and anti-inflammatory markers, while decreasing RF EI, suggesting that CWI may be effective in enhancing short-term muscle recovery after high-volume bouts of resistance exercise.

Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.

Community trust

Loading…

How much do you trust this study's findings?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something wrong here?

Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.