Presentation Type
Poster Presentation
Abstract/Artist Statement
Context: Electrical stimulation is often used to modulate pain and facilitate recovery following injury. However, research is inconclusive regarding the use of electrical stimulation as a means of performance recovery. The purpose of this study was to determine if electrical muscle stimulation following exercise was effective in reducing perceived soreness and improving muscle recovery. Our hypothesis was that the higher intensity protocol would decrease muscle soreness, relative to a low intensity protocol.
Methods: A repeated measures design was used for this study, whereby a non-random sample of 7 subjects (4 males, 3 females) participated in two trials (average age 22.3 + 3.0 years; height 64 + 6.8 inches; weight 190.8 + 54.72lbs). The two trials included a high intensity stimulation protocol and low intensity stimulation protocol using the Compex Sport Elite 2.0 portable electrical stimulation unit. On the first day, subjects reported a baseline level of soreness (numeric rating scale provided) before performing double leg bodyweight squats to self-reported failure. Total number of squats was recorded. Upon completion of squats, the subject rated perceived soreness before randomly drawing the treatment protocol (high intensity or low intensity stimulation). The first treatment was delivered to the dominant quadriceps for 20 minutes. Subjects returned at 24, 48 and 72 hours to rate perceived soreness and receive the same Compex treatment. Upon completion of the final treatment, subjects performed double leg bodyweight squats to failure and the number of squats were recorded. Two weeks passed before subjects returned to complete the other trial following the same procedures. Descriptive statistics were calculated for perceived soreness and squats including mean and standard deviation. A 2 x 4 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for perceived soreness to determine if significant differences exist in recovery between time points. A 2 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for squats to determine if a significant difference exists in squat performance between trials. Microsoft Excel and SPSS 25.0 were used for data analysis.
Results: A 2x2 (time x trial) repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for squat performance which revealed no statistical significance (p = 0.11) Similarly, a 2x4 (trial x time) repeated measures ANOVA was completed for perceived soreness and was not statistically significant (p = 0.36). However, trends suggest that performance and perceived soreness improved with the use of muscle stimulation to facilitate recovery regardless of setting.
Conclusion: While the results of the study suggest that both performance and perceived soreness might improve with the use of electrotherapy, further research is warranted examining this influence on a larger sample size. A higher intensity setting demonstrated a greater trend in reducing soreness when compared to a lower intensity setting; however, both settings resulted in comparable squat performance.
Use of Electrotherapy to Facilitate Post- Exercise Muscle Recovery and Perceived Soreness
UC North Ballroom
Context: Electrical stimulation is often used to modulate pain and facilitate recovery following injury. However, research is inconclusive regarding the use of electrical stimulation as a means of performance recovery. The purpose of this study was to determine if electrical muscle stimulation following exercise was effective in reducing perceived soreness and improving muscle recovery. Our hypothesis was that the higher intensity protocol would decrease muscle soreness, relative to a low intensity protocol.
Methods: A repeated measures design was used for this study, whereby a non-random sample of 7 subjects (4 males, 3 females) participated in two trials (average age 22.3 + 3.0 years; height 64 + 6.8 inches; weight 190.8 + 54.72lbs). The two trials included a high intensity stimulation protocol and low intensity stimulation protocol using the Compex Sport Elite 2.0 portable electrical stimulation unit. On the first day, subjects reported a baseline level of soreness (numeric rating scale provided) before performing double leg bodyweight squats to self-reported failure. Total number of squats was recorded. Upon completion of squats, the subject rated perceived soreness before randomly drawing the treatment protocol (high intensity or low intensity stimulation). The first treatment was delivered to the dominant quadriceps for 20 minutes. Subjects returned at 24, 48 and 72 hours to rate perceived soreness and receive the same Compex treatment. Upon completion of the final treatment, subjects performed double leg bodyweight squats to failure and the number of squats were recorded. Two weeks passed before subjects returned to complete the other trial following the same procedures. Descriptive statistics were calculated for perceived soreness and squats including mean and standard deviation. A 2 x 4 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for perceived soreness to determine if significant differences exist in recovery between time points. A 2 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for squats to determine if a significant difference exists in squat performance between trials. Microsoft Excel and SPSS 25.0 were used for data analysis.
Results: A 2x2 (time x trial) repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for squat performance which revealed no statistical significance (p = 0.11) Similarly, a 2x4 (trial x time) repeated measures ANOVA was completed for perceived soreness and was not statistically significant (p = 0.36). However, trends suggest that performance and perceived soreness improved with the use of muscle stimulation to facilitate recovery regardless of setting.
Conclusion: While the results of the study suggest that both performance and perceived soreness might improve with the use of electrotherapy, further research is warranted examining this influence on a larger sample size. A higher intensity setting demonstrated a greater trend in reducing soreness when compared to a lower intensity setting; however, both settings resulted in comparable squat performance.