RESUMEN
Introduction: Various interventions have been applied to improve recovery from muscle fatigue based on evidence from subjective outcomes, such as perceived fatigue and soreness, which may partly contribute to conflicting results of reducing muscle fatigue. There is a need to assess the effectiveness of various intervention on reducing neuromuscular fatigue assessed by a quantitative outcome, such as electromyography (EMG). The objective of this review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of different interventions and intervention timing for reducing fatigue rates during exercise. Methods: The literature was searched from the earliest record to March 2021. Eighteen studies with a total of 87 data points involving 281 participants and seven types of interventions [i.e., active recovery (AR), compression, cooling, electrical stimulation (ES), light-emitting diode therapy (LEDT), massage, and stretching] were included in this meta-analysis. Results: The results showed that compression (SMD = 0.28; 95% CI = -0.00 to 0.56; p = 0.05; I 2 = 58%) and LEDT (SMD = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.11 to 0.88; p = 0.01; I 2 = 52%) have a significant recovery effect on reducing muscle fatigue. Additionally, compression, AR, and cooling have a significant effect on reducing muscle fatigue when conducted during exercise, whereas a non-effective trend when applied after exercise. Discussion: This meta-analysis suggests that compression and LEDT have a significant effect on reducing muscle fatigue. The results also suggest that there is a significant effect or an effective trend on reducing muscle fatigue when compression, AR, cooling, and ES are applied during exercise, but not after exercise.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There are no guidelines on selecting alternating pressure (AP) configurations on increasing sacral skin blood flow (SBF). AIM: The specific aims were to compare different cycle periods and pressure amplitudes of AP on sacral SBF responses in healthy people to establish the efficacy and safety of the protocols. METHODS: Two studies were tested, including the cycle period study (8 2.5-min vs 4 5-min protocols) and the pressure amplitude study (75/5 vs 65/15 mmHg protocols). Sacral SBF was measured using laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) in 20 participants. AP loads were randomly applied using an indenter through the rigid LDF probe. Each protocol included a 10-min baseline, 20-min AP and 10-min recovery periods. A 30-min washout period was provided. The SBF response was normalized to the baseline SBF of each condition of each participant. RESULTS: For the cycle period study, the 4 5-min cycle protocol partially restored more SBF than the 8 2.5-min cycle protocol at the low-pressure phase (0.87 ± 0.04 vs 0.71 ± 0.03, p < 0.05) and at the high-pressure phase (0.25 ± 0.03 vs 0.19 ± 0.03, p < 0.05). For the pressure amplitude study, the 75/5 mmHg protocol partially restored more sacral SBF than the 65/15 mmHg protocol at the low-pressure phase (0.87 ± 0.1 vs 0.25 ± 0.03, p < 0.05) but not at the high-pressure phase (0.23 ± 0.02 vs 0.21 ± 0.02, non-significant). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that 1) a cycle period of 5 min was better than 2.5 min and 2) a pressure amplitude of 75/5 mmHg was better than 65/15 mmHg. The finding provides insights for selecting the AP configurations for increasing SBF.
