Why the study?
Therapeutic tools have been studied as performance enhancers, and the authors evaluated Capacitive-Resistive Electric Transfer as a performance booster in paralympic swimmers.
Does Capacitive-Resistive Electric Transfer improve time and perceived exertion in Paralympic swimmers?
Does Capacitive-Resistive Electric Transfer improve time and perceived exertion in Paralympic swimmers?
The use of Capacitive-Resistive Electric Transfer immediately before swimming worsened 100-m performance times in Paralympic athletes, leading to early trial stoppage.
Suggests avoiding pre-competition CRET in paralympic swimmers; leaves open optimal dosing or timing in larger trials.
Throughout history a variety of therapeutic tools have been studied as possible enhancers of sports activities. This study proposes the use of Capacitive-Resistive Electric Transfer (CRET) as a performance booster to paralympic athletes, specifically those belonging to the Spanish Paralympic swimming committee. The study was a randomized, single-blind, and observer-blind, crossover clinical trial. Six athletes were randomly assigned to three groups: one treated with CRET (A); a placebo group (B) and a control group (C). The CRET group attended a twenty-minute session before being subjected to pool trials at distances of 50 and 100 m at maximum performance. Measurements were in two dimensions: time in seconds and the Borg scale for perceived exertion. Comparisons between groups were made with respect to distance and the main variables. In the case of perceived exertion, no significant changes were observed in any of the distances; however, in the case of the time variable, a significant difference was observed between Group A vs. Personal Record at 100 m distance (76.3 ± 6.8 vs. 68.4 ± 3.3). The proposed protocol and level of hyperthermia applied suggest refusal of CRET use for the 100-m distance a few minutes before sports practice. Our analysis suggests the need to modify the presented protocol. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier under NCT number: NCT04336007.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sousa et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: