Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Effect of aerobic recovery intensity on delayed-onset muscle soreness and strength [with consumer summary]
Tufano JJ, Brown LE, Coburn JW, Tsang KKW, Cazas VK, la Porta JW
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 2012 Oct;26(10):2777-2782
clinical trial
1/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: No; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: No; Point estimates and variability: No. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

Because of the performance decrements associated with delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS), a treatment to alleviate its symptoms is of great interest. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of low versus moderate-intensity aerobic recovery on DOMS and strength. Twenty-six women (22.11 +/- 2.49 years; 60.33 +/- 8.37 kg; and 163.83 +/- 7.29 cm) were split into 3 different groups and performed a DOMS-inducing protocol of 60 eccentric actions of the knee extensors followed by 1 of three 20-minute recovery interventions: moderate-intensity cycling (n = 10), low-intensity cycling (LIC; n = 10), or seated rest (CON; n = 6) after the eccentric protocol. Pain scale (PS), isometric strength (ISO), and dynamic strength (PT) were recorded before (PRE), immediately post (IP), 24- (24 h), 48- (4 8h), 72- (72 h), and 96- (96 h) hours after exercise. For PT, PRE, 48 h, 72 h, and 96 h were significantly (p < 0.05) greater than IP values but not different from 24 h. For PS, IP (4.83 +/- 0.36) was greater than that for all other time periods, whereas 24 h (2.91 +/- 0.42), 48 h (2.62 +/- 0.53), and 72 h (1.97 +/- 0.49) were all greater than PRE (0.44 +/- 0.19) values. Also, 24 h and 48 h were not different but were both greater than 72 h and 96 h (1.13 +/- 0.32), whereas 72 h was > 96 h. For ISO, neither CON nor LIC showed any significant difference across time. Moderate-intensity cycling showed no difference between PRE (189.88 +/- 40.68), IP (193.75 +/- 47.24), 24 h (186.52 +/- 53.55), or 48 h (195.36 +/- 55.06), but 72 h (210.05 +/- 53.57) and 96 h (207.78 +/- 59.99) were significantly > 24 h. The 72 h was also greater than IP. Therefore, moderate-intensity aerobic recovery may be suggested after eccentric muscle actions.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help