RESUMEN
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2021.638936.].
RESUMEN
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2021.638936.].
RESUMEN
Acute foam rolling protocols may increase range of motion without a negative impact on muscle performance. The main purpose of the present study was to investigate the acute effects of foam rolling on cycling performance (mean power and maximal power), affect and perceived exertion. A secondary aim was to assess the effect of foam rolling on post-exercise muscle soreness. In a random order, ten recreationally trained cyclists (age: 26 ± 5 years; height 1.76 ± 0.06 m; total body mass 78.3 ± 19.8 kg; cycling experience: 5.6 ± 5.3 years; 4.1 ± 1.3 cycling sessions per week and 1.4 ± 1.4 strength sessions per week) were submitted to the following experimental conditions (separated by one week) before performing a three-minute, all-out cycling test: foam rolling or control. During foam rolling protocol, participants were instructed to roll back and forth on one leg and to place the opposite leg crossed over, from the proximal to the distal portion of the rectus femoris and vastus lateralis during one set of sixty seconds for each muscle group. Feeling scale (10 min pre and post-test), CR-10 scale of perceived exertion (ten-minute post-test), pressure pain threshold (pre and 24 h post-test) and mean/maximal power were assessed. No significant differences were observed between conditions for mean and maximal power, affect, perceived exertion, and pressure pain threshold (all p > 0.05). In conclusion, a pre-exercise acute session of self-myofascial release does not improve performance and post-exercise muscle soreness of recreationally trained cyclists.
RESUMEN
Objective: To analyze the effects of whole body electrostimulation (WB-EMS) with body weight training on functional fitness and body composition of older men. Methods: Twenty physically inactive older men were randomized into: Control group (control), performed the body weight exercise training wearing electrostimulation clothing, but without receiving electrical current stimuli (n = 10), and body weight associated with whole body electrostimulation group (BW+WB-EMS), performed the body weight exercise training wearing electrostimulation clothing plus whole body electrostimulation (n = 10). The training sessions were performed twice a week for 6 weeks and included eight exercises using body weight, performed in two sets of eight repetitions. Physical function was assessed using a battery composed of seven tests, six derived from the Senior fitness test and a handgrip strength test. We also measured the muscle thickness (MT) of the biceps and triceps brachii and vastus lateralis. Results: The BW+WB-EMS group presented increased (p < 0.05) performance in the 30-s chair stand test (10.2 ± 3.3 vs. 13.8 ± 5.0 reps), arm curl (16.6 ± 3.9 vs. 19.9 ± 6.1 reps), 6-min walk test (402 ± 96 vs. 500 ± 104 m), and handgrip strength test (30 ± 11 vs. 32 ± 11 kgf). The BW+WB-EMS group also presented increased MT (p < 0.05) in the biceps brachii (17.7 ± 3.0 vs. 21.4 ± 3.4 mm), triceps brachial (14.7 ± 3.6 vs. 17.5 ± 4.1 mm), and vastus lateralis muscles (15.1 ± 2.6 vs. 18.6 ± 4.3 mm). Moderate correlations were found in arm curl (p = 0.011, r = 0.552) but not handgrip strength (p = 0.053, r = 0.439) with changes in the biceps MT. Moderate changes in the 6-min walk distance were significantly correlated with changes in vastus lateralis MT (p = 0.036, r = 0.471). There was a moderate correlation between the changes in the 30-s chair stand test (p = 0.006, r = 0.589) and changes in the vastus lateralis MT. Furthermore, although a moderate correlation (r = 0.438) was found between triceps MT and handgrip strength no significant difference (p = 0.053) was reported. Additionally, there were no statistical differences in any parameters for the control group. Conclusion: WB-EMS with body weight training increased functional fitness and MT in physically inactive older men.