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

Abstract

Background: 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).

Design: A parallel group non-blinded trial with repeated measurements.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Consort diagram.

Fig 2

Effects of Active Legs Recovery on RF (A), VLO (B), VMO (C) bioelectrical activity. *p significantly different value; ES–effect size; ALR—Active Legs Recovery; RF- Rectus Femoris; VLO—Vastus Lateralis Oblique; VMO - Vastus Medialis Oblique; B—baseline; PE—post-execise; PR—post-recovery.

Fig 3

Effects of Active Arms Recovery on RF (A), VLO (B), VMO (C) bioelectrical activity. *p significantly different value; ES–effect size; AAR—Active Arms Recovery; RF- Rectus Femoris; VLO—Vastus Lateralis Oblique; VMO - Vastus Medialis Oblique; B—baseline; PE—post-execise; PR—post-recovery.

Fig 4

Effects of Passive Recovery on RF (A), VLO (B), VMO (C) bioelectrical activity. *p significantly different value; ES–effect size; P—Passive Recovery; RF- Rectus Femoris; VLO—Vastus Lateralis Oblique; VMO—Vastus Medialis Oblique; B—baseline; PE—post-execise; PR—post-recovery.

Fig 5

Effects of ALR (A), AAR (B) and P (C) on evaluated muscles Peak Torque. *p significantly different value; ES–effect size; ALR—Active Legs Recovery; AAR—Active Arms Recovery; P—Passive recovery; B—baseline; PE—post-execise; PR—post-recovery.

Fig 6

Effects of ALR (A), AAR (B) and P (C) on evaluated muscles Average Work. *p significantly different value; ES–effect size; ALR—Active Legs Recovery; AAR—Active Arms Recovery; P—Passive recovery; B—baseline; PE—post-execise; PR—post-recovery.

Fig 7

Effects of ALR (A), AAR (B) and P (C) on evaluated muscles Maximal Power. *p significantly different value; ES–effect size; ALR—Active Legs Recovery; AAR—Active Arms Recovery; P—Passive recovery; B—baseline; PE—post-execise; PR—post-recovery.