Find in Library

The purpose of this study was to compare three recovery methods: control (CON), lower-body vibration (LBV) and LBV+ local muscle cooling (LBVC) on lower-body performance, perceived recovery, and muscle soreness. Physically active male volunteers (n=8) in a repeated-measures, counterbalanced design, completed three sets of squats to fatigue, each recovery treatment, and two Wingate Anaerobic Tests. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and heart rate (HR) were measured after fatiguing exercise, recovery treatment and Wingate Anaerobic tests. Peak and mean power, fatigue index, Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness (DOMS), and comfort levels were compared between each treatment. In Wingate 1, no significant differences (p=0.42) were found among CON, LBV, or LBVC regarding peak power (1119±239, 1097±225, and 1146±260 W, respectively), mean power (p=0.32), or fatigue index (p=0.47). In Wingate 2, no significant (p=0.17) differences were found among CON, LBV, or LBVC regarding peak power (1042±228, 1078±233, and 1110±268 W, respectively), mean power (p=0.38), or fatigue index (p=0.15). A significantly better (p=0.01) perceived recovery was observed after LBV (6±1) and LBVC (6±1) compared to CON (4±1). The study findings support psychological but not performance enhancing benefits after the use of LBV and LBVC as recovery methods.