Does external pneumatic compression help with recovery and improve performance after cycle ergometer anaerobic exercise?

. National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University Athletes are constantly searching for treatment strategies to boost performance to provide them that edge over their competitors. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of External Pneumatic Compression (EPC) on recovery and performance after anaerobic exercise. Ten male athletes (age:25.2 ± 1.1 years, height: 173.1 ± 6.69 cm, weight: 75.77 ± 11.95 kg) participated in this counterbalanced cross-over study. Participants underwent the Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) ergometer cycling session (CS1 & CS2). Total power in Joules (TW), mean power (MP) output in Watts and fatigue index (%FI) were extracted. Each session included a 5-min warm-up cycle, CS1 and CS2 (30 seconds), 20 minutes rest trial between CS1 and CS2 ((EPC/active recovery (AR)/ static recovery (SR) – randomized). Heart rate (HR), ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and blood lactate (BLa) were recorded. Results indicated TW for EPC (CS1: 19.14 ± 2.33, CS2: 19.04 ± 2.83, p = 0.01) and AR (CS1: 19.09 ± 2.54, CS2: 19.02 ± 2.97, p =0.02) were significantly higher than SR (CS1: 18.58 ± 2.73, CS2: 18.47 ± 3.03). No significance between EPC and AR. Similarly, MP for EPC (CS1: 642.55 ± 78.38, CS2: 637.85 ± 95.62 p = 0.02) and AR (AR CS1: 634.90 ± 81.18, CS2: 638.06 ± 99.98, p = 0.02) were significantly higher than SR (CS1: 623.21 ± 91.08, CS2: 620.38 ± 103.03). No significance between EPC and AR (p = 0.57). %FI (EPC CS1: 63.40 ± 18.03, CS2: 56.86 ± 15.15 vs. AR CS1: 64.80 ± 17.41, CS2: 59.42 ± 17.78 vs. SR CS1: 62.23 ± 17.05, CS2: 57.40 ± 15.98, p = 0.78).We can conclude that EPC and AR help with recovery and performance. EPC may be a beneficial recovery method to use when static recovery is preferred

Acessar