Home > Journals > Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche > Past Issues > Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche 2014 October;173(10) > Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche 2014 October;173(10):525-31

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

GAZZETTA MEDICA ITALIANA ARCHIVIO PER LE SCIENZE MEDICHE

A Journal on Internal Medicine and Pharmacology


Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES  


Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche 2014 October;173(10):525-31

Copyright © 2014 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Acute effect of lower-body vibration on sprint performance and recovery

Nepocatych S. 1, Balilionis G. 1, Collins A. B. 2, Neggers Y. 3, Katica C. P. 2, Bishop P. A. 2

1 Department of Exercise Science, Elon University, Elon, NC, USA; 2 Department of Kinesiology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA; 3 Department of Human Nutrition and Hospitality Management, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA


PDF  


AIM: The aim of this study was to compare two recovery methods, control (CON) and lower-body vibration (LBV), on actual and perceived recovery, lower leg volume and sprint performance.
METHODS: Physically active female volunteers (n=12) participated in the study. In a counterbalanced design, participants completed a Yo-Yo intermittent test to volitional fatigue, 5 x 20-m sprints, recovery treatments on separate occasions, and post-recovery 5 x 20-m sprints to assess sprint performance. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE), heart rate (HR), and lower-leg volume were measured after fatiguing exercise, recovery treatment, and sprints.
RESULTS: No significant mean differences (p = 0.97) were found between CON and LBV regarding average of best three 20-m sprint times (3.85 ± 0.2 and 3.84 ± 0.25 s, respectively), or (p = 0.94) 10-m split times (2.22 ± 0.12 and 2.21 ± 0.15 s, respectively). However, a significantly better (p = 0.02) perceived recovery rating was observed after LBV (7 ± 2) compared to CON (5 ± 2). Post-recovery lower-leg volume was significantly higher than pre-treatment volume after LBV (p = 0.03) but not after CON (p = 0.07).
CONCLUSION: The current study shows that no benefits were observed for LBV in enhancing recovery or sprint performance.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail