The purpose of this study was to compare an electrostimulated
to an active recovery strategy after a submaximal isometric fatiguing exercise.
Nineteen healthy men completed three sessions (separated by at least 4 weeks)
which included a knee extensors provocation exercise consisting of 3 sets
of 25 isometric contractions. Contraction intensity level was fixed respectively
at 60%, 55% and 50% of previously determined maximal voluntary contraction
for the first, second and third sets. This provocation exercise was followed
by either an active (AR) recovery (25 min pedaling on a cycle ergometer),
an electrostimulated (ESR) recovery (25-min continuous and non-tetanic (5
Hz) stimulation of the quadriceps) or a strictly passive recovery (PR).
Peak torques of knee extensors and subjective perception of muscle pain
(VAS, 0-10) were evaluated before (pre-ex), immediately after the provocation
exercise (post-ex), after the recovery period (post-rec), as well as 75
minutes (1h15) and one day (24h) after the exercise bout. Time course of
peak torque was similar among the different recovery modes: ~ 75% of initial
values at post-ex, ~ 90% at post-rec and at 1h15. At 24h, peak torque reached
a level close to baseline values (PR: 99.1 ± 10.7%, AR: 105.3 ± 12.2%, ESR:
104.4 ± 10.5%). VAS muscle pain scores decreased rapidly between post-ex
and post-rec (p < 0.001); there were no significant differences between
the three recovery modes (p = 0.64). In conclusion, following a submaximal
isometric knee extension exercise, neither electrostimulated nor active
recovery strategies significantly improved the time course of muscle function
recovery.
Key
words: Electrical stimulation, muscle recovery, isometric contraction,
muscle fatigue.
|
|