Key result
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation significantly increased calf arterial inflow compared to control interventions (P < .001) and was the only strategy that allowed performance recovery.
Why the study?
Does neuromuscular electrical-stimulation-induced blood flow improve performance recovery in high-intensity intermittent-trained athletes?
RCT (n=33)
Placebo-controlled
Randomly assigned
Does neuromuscular electrical-stimulation-induced blood flow improve performance recovery in high-intensity intermittent-trained athletes?
Effect estimate: r = 0.72 for peak power; r = 0.68 for mean power (95% CI 90% CL 0.49-0.86 for peak; 0.42-0.83 for mean)
p-value: p=<.001
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation-induced blood flow during short-term recovery improves performance recovery between bouts of high-intensity exercise.
NMES merits integration into athletic recovery protocols; extends rehabilitation evidence to performance settings.
PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of different limb blood-flow levels on cycling-performance recovery, blood lactate concentration, and heart rate. METHODS: Thirty-three high-intensity intermittent-trained athletes completed two 30-s Wingate anaerobic test sessions, 3 × 30-s (WAnT 1-3) and 1 × 30-s (WAnT 4), on a cycling ergometer. WAnT 1-3 and WAnT 4 were separated by a randomly assigned 24-min recovery intervention selected from among blood-flow restriction, passive rest, placebo stimulation, or neuromuscular electrical-stimulation-induced blood flow. Calf arterial inflow was measured by venous occlusion plethysmography at regular intervals throughout the recovery period. Performance was measured in terms of peak and mean power output during WAnT 1 and WAnT 4. RESULTS: After the recovery interventions, a large (r = .68 [90% CL .42; .83]) and very large (r = .72 (90% CL .49; .86]) positive correlation were observed between the change in calf arterial inflow and the change in mean and peak power output, respectively. Calf arterial inflow was significantly higher during the neuromuscular-electrical-stimulation recovery intervention than with the blood-flow-restriction, passive-rest, and placebo-stimulation interventions (P < .001). This corresponds to the only intervention that allowed performance recovery (P > .05). No recovery effect was linked to heart rate or blood lactate concentration levels. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, these data support the existence of a positive correlation between an increase in blood flow and performance recovery between bouts of high-intensity exercise. As a practical consideration, this effect can be obtained by using neuromuscular electrical stimulation-induced blood flow since this passive, simple strategy could be easily applied during short-term recovery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Borne et al. (2016) conducted an RCT in High-intensity intermittent-trained athletes (n=33). Neuromuscular electrical-stimulation-induced blood flow vs. Blood-flow restriction, passive rest, or placebo stimulation was evaluated on Correlation between change in calf arterial inflow and change in mean and peak power output (r = 0.72 for peak power; r = 0.68 for mean power, 95% CI 90% CL 0.49-0.86 for peak; 0.42-0.83 for mean, p=<.001). Neuromuscular electrical stimulation significantly increased calf arterial inflow compared to control interventions (P < .001) and was the only strategy that allowed performance recovery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: