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

Detailed Search Results

Photobiomodulation by LED does not alter muscle recovery indicators and presents similar outcomes to cold-water immersion and active recovery
Malta EDS, de Lira FS, Machado FA, Zago AS, do Amaral SL, Zagatto AM
Frontiers in Physiology 2019 Jan 14;10(1948):Epub
clinical trial
3/10 [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: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness of photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) on muscle recovery based on inflammation (interleukin-10, IL-10; tumor necrosis factor-alpha, TNFalpha), muscle damage markers (creatine kinase, CK; lactate dehydrogenase, LDH), delay onset muscle soreness (DOMS), and countermovement jump performance (CMJ) after two sprint interval training (SIT) sessions compared with a placebo condition (part-I), as well as to compare the effectiveness of PBMT with active recovery (AR) and cold-water immersion (CWI)(part-II). METHODS: Part-I was conducted as a double-blind, randomized and placebo-controlled study and part-II as a parallel-group study. Thirty-six men participated in the studies (12 participants in part-I and 36 participants in part-II). Volunteers performed two SITs interspaced by 24-hours (SIT1 and SIT2) to mimic the effect of accumulating 2 consecutive days of SIT. In part-I, only after SIT2, PBMT (total energy 600 J (300 J per leg in 5 spots); wavelength 660 to 850 nm) or placebo interventions were performed, while in part-II PBMT (part-I data), AR (15-min; 50% of the maximal aerobic power), or CWI (10-min; 10 degrees C) were carried out, also after SIT2. Blood samples were collected before (ie, baseline), and 0.5, 1, 24, 48, and 72-h after SIT2, while CMJ and DOMS were measured before, 24, 48, and 72-h after SIT2. RESULTS: In part-I, there were no interactions between PBMT and placebo conditions for any blood markers (p >= 0.313), DOMS (p = 0.052), and CMJ (p = 0.295). However, an effect of time was found with increases in LDH, CK, and IL-10 (p <= 0.043) as well as a decrease in DOMS at 72-h compared with 24-h (p = 0.012). In part-II, there were no interactions between the PBMT, AR, and CWI groups for any markers at the same moments (p >= 0.189) and for the peak and integral values (p >= 0.193), for DOMS (p = 0.314) and CMJ (p = 0.264). However, an effect of time was found with an increase in CK and IL-10 (p = 0.003), while DOMS decreased at 48 and 72-hours compared with 24-hours (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In summary, PBMT had no effect on inflammation, muscle damage, CMJ performance, or DOMS after two consecutive sprint interval training sessions compared to placebo, CWI, and AR strategies.

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