Comparison of Two Different Modes of Active Recovery on Muscles Performance after Fatiguing Exercise in Mountain Canoeist and Football Players

• Published in: PloS one 2016-10, Vol.11 (10), p.e0164216-e0164216
• Main Authors: Mika, Anna, Oleksy, Łukasz, Kielnar, Renata, Wodka-Natkaniec, Ewa, Twardowska, Magdalena, Kamiński, Kamil, Małek, Zbigniew
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Arm; Athletic recruitment; Bioelectricity; Biology and Life Sciences; Comparative analysis; Electromyography; Exercise; Exercise - physiology; Fatigue; Football; Football players; Humans; Legs; Load; Male; Measurement methods; Medicine and Health Sciences; Muscle fatigue; Muscle Fatigue - physiology; Muscle function; Muscles; Muscular fatigue; Physical education; Physical fitness; Physical Sciences; Quadriceps Muscle - physiology; Recovery; Recovery (Medical); Recovery of Function; Rehabilitation; Research and Analysis Methods; Sports; Studies; Torque; Training
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164216

The aim of this study is to assess if the application of different methods of active recovery (working the same or different muscle groups from those which were active during fatiguing exercise) results in significant differences in muscle performance and if the efficiency of the active recovery method is dependent upon the specific sport activity (training loads). A parallel group non-blinded trial with repeated measurements. Thirteen mountain canoeists and twelve football players participated in this study. Measurements of the bioelectrical activity, torque, work and power of the vastus lateralis oblique, vastus medialis oblique, and rectus femoris muscles were performed during isokinetic tests at a velocity of 90°/s. Active legs recovery in both groups was effective in reducing fatigue from evaluated muscles, where a significant decrease in fatigue index was observed. The muscles peak torque, work and power parameters did not change significantly after both modes of active recovery, but in both groups significant decrease was seen after passive recovery. We suggest that 20 minutes of post-exercise active recovery involving the same muscles that were active during the fatiguing exercise is more effective in fatigue recovery than active exercise using the muscles that were not involved in the exercise. Active arm exercises were less effective in both groups which indicates a lack of a relationship between the different training regimens and the part of the body which is principally used during training.