Comparison of Different Recovery Strategies After High-Intensity Functional Training: A Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial.

David Barranco-Gil,Pedro L. Valenzuela,Rafael Martínez-Gómez,Alejandro Lucia

doi:10.3389/fphys.2022.819588

Abstract

We aimed to determine whether voluntary exercise or surface neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) could enhance recovery after a high-intensity functional training (HIFT) session compared with total rest. The study followed a crossover design. Fifteen male recreational CrossFit athletes (29 ± 8 years) performed a HIFT session and were randomized to recover for 15 min with either low-intensity leg pedaling (“Exercise”), NMES to the lower limbs (“NMES”), or total rest (“Control”). Perceptual [rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) of the lower-limb muscles], physiological (heart rate, blood lactate and muscle oxygen saturation) and performance (jump ability) indicators of recovery were assessed at baseline and at different time points during recovery up to 24 h post-exercise. A significant interaction effect was found for RPE (p = 0.035), and although post hoc analyses revealed no significant differences across conditions, there was a quasi-significant (p = 0.061) trend toward a lower RPE with NMES compared with Control immediately after the 15-min recovery. No significant interaction effect was found for the remainder of outcomes (all p > 0.05). Except for a trend toward an improved perceived recovery with NMES compared with Control, low-intensity exercise, NMES, and total rest seem to promote a comparable recovery after a HIFT session.

Highlights

Enhancing recovery between workouts is a key issue in competition sports, as it might allow athletes to cope increasing training loads, contributing to an improved performance (Bishop et al, 2008)
No significant differences were found between recovery methods for the time needed to complete the workout of the day (WOD) (340 ± 101, 338 ± 101 and 315 ± 66 s for control, exercise and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), respectively; p = 0.410; ηp2 = 0.062), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) reported immediately after the WOD (8.7 ± 0.9, 9.2 ± 1.0 and 9.0 ± 0.8 arbitrary units, respectively; p = 0.106; ηp2 = 0.148), suggesting similar intensity levels for the three conditions
delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) increased above baseline values at post-exercise, post-recovery and 24 h later, respectively and a significant interaction effect was observed (p = 0.017; ηp2 = 0.164, Figure 2B)

Summary

Introduction

Enhancing recovery between workouts is a key issue in competition sports, as it might allow athletes to cope (and adapt to) increasing training loads, contributing to an improved performance (Bishop et al, 2008). A fast recovery is even more important in those sports where athletes must face consecutive competition days or even different competition sessions in the same day (Bishop et al, 2008). Different studies have shown that HIFT sessions induce remarkable levels of fatigue, as reflected by an impairment of performance indicators (e.g., 1 repetition maximum, jump height, rate of force development), increased levels of biomarkers such as blood lactate or creatine kinase, and high values of perceptual fatigue (Maté-Muñoz et al, 2017; Timón et al, 2019). Despite the popularity of HIFT and its highly fatiguing nature, scarce evidence exists on which strategies could enhance recovery after this training modality

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion