WHOLE BODY VIBRATION AND BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION FOR MUSCLE RECOVERY FOLLOWING EXERCISE-INDUCED MUSCLE DAMAGE
Matthew A. Chatlaong, Daphney M. Stanford, William M. Miller, Matthew B. Jessee. University of Mississippi, University, MS.
BACKGROUND: Combined, whole-body vibration and blood-flow restriction (WBV+BFR) may elicit a reparative response in skeletal muscle, but it is unknown if it improves recovery from muscle damage. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of WBV+BFR on muscle recovery following unaccustomed resistance exercise. METHODS: To date, 16 participants completed 100 maximal unilateral eccentric knee extensions with each leg, followed by WBV+BFR on one leg (3 sets of 4 min, 1-3 mm at 30 Hz, 80% arterial occlusion pressure applied, 3 min inter-set rest), but not the other (CON). Pre-exercise and for 3 consecutive days after, measures of maximal voluntary contraction torque (MVC), muscle thickness (MT), and muscle soreness (MS) were assessed via dynamometry, ultrasound, and visual analog scale, respectively, followed by WBV+BFR (except day 4). Discomfort (0-10) was assessed during WBV+BFR. Bayesian RMANOVA were used to find the most probable model for each variable. Data are presented as mean ± SD. BF10= likelihood of most probable alternative model vs the null. RESULTS: A main effect of time (BF10=2249.0) indicated MVC (Nm) decreased from pre (193.6 ± 61.3) to post-exercise (163.5 ± 50.3, BF10=1557.4), and remained below pre at day 2 (177.3 ± 57.6, BF10=14.3) while still higher than post-exercise (BF10 =101.1). There was weak evidence that day 3 MVC (178.1 ± 53.7) was lower than pre (BF10=1.9), and anecdotal evidence that day 4 (185.5 ± 65.6) did not differ from pre (BF10=.4). For MT (cm) at 60% thigh length, the most probable model was the null (BF10=.7). There was strong evidence of a main effect of time at 70% MT (BF10=28.1). There was weak evidence that 70% MT increased from pre (3.4 ± .8) to day 2 (3.5 ± .8, BF10=2.6), moderate evidence that day 3 was higher than pre (3.5 ± .8, BF10=8.2), strong evidence that day 4 (3.5 ± .8) was higher than pre (BF10=12.8), and anecdotal evidence that days 2-4 did not differ (all BF10<.5). A main effect of time (BF10=28526.5) indicated that MS (AU) increased from pre (1.0 ± 2.6) to day 2 (16.7 ± 17.1, BF10=1888.1), remained above pre at day 3 (13.6 ± 19.6, BF10=33.1), and moderate evidence that day 4 (7.5 ± 12.8) was higher than pre (BF10=5.3). Discomfort (AU) differed across days (BF10=22.1), (day 1=3.5 ± 2.2, day 2=3.2 ± 2.4, day 3=3.0 ± 2.4), where day 3 was lower than day 1 (BF10=16.1). CONCLUSION: Currently, WBV+BFR does not appear to improve recovery compared to CON.
Chatlaong, MA; Stanford, DM; Miller, WM; and Jessee, MB
"WHOLE BODY VIBRATION AND BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION FOR MUSCLE RECOVERY FOLLOWING EXERCISE-INDUCED MUSCLE DAMAGE,"
International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings: Vol. 16:
1, Article 194.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol16/iss1/194