The Acute Effects Of External Pneumatic Compression On Anaerobic Performance And Blood Lactate Concentration

Abstract

The use of External Pneumatic Compression (EPC) among athletes as a recovery modality is rising. However the evidence supporting efficacy of EPC on recovery and performance is limited thus it warrants for further investigation. PURPOSE: To determine the acute effects of EPC on anaerobic performance and blood lactate (BLa) concentration following a fatigue protocol. METHODS: In a randomized, counterbalanced cross-over study design, 10 healthy university male athletes, aged (25.2 ± 1.1 yrs), were recruited to complete 3 experimental sessions with two 30-seconds trails of maximum effort Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT)(T1 & T2) on a cycle ergometer with a constant load of .075 kg per kilogram of body mass, separated by a 20-min recovery period where either passive recovery (PR), active recovery (AR) or EPC treatment were administered. BLa levels, heart rate and ratings of perceived exertion were recorded. Power output in Watts (PO), fatigue index in %(FI) and total work in Joules(TW) were examined. RESULTS: Mean power output (MP) in Watts following AR (T1: 634.90 ± 81.18, T2: 638.06 ± 99.98)(p= .022) and EPC (T1: 642.55 ± 78.38, T2: 637.85 ± 95.62) (p= .020) were significantly higher than PR (T1: 623.21 ± 91.08, T2: 620.38 ± 103.03). However, MP between AR and EPC treatment were not significant (p= .567). Similarly, TW were significantly higher following AR (T1: 19.09 ± 2.54, T2: 19.02 ± 2.97) (p= .028) and EPC treatment (T1: 19.14 ± 2.33, T2: 19.04 ± 2.83) (p= .013) than PR (T1: 18.58 ± 2.73, T2: 18.47 ± 3.03) but mean differences were minimal between AR and EPC treatment. PO (PR T1: 954.90 ± 206.78, T2: 890 ± 178.42, AR T1: 1001.60 ± 187.16, T2: 928.50 ± 172.46, EPC T1: 970 ± 135.71, EPC T2: 943.00 ± 152.58) (p= .481) and FI (PR T1: 62.23 ± 17.05, T2: 57.40 ± 15.98, ER T1: 64.80 ± 17.41, T2: 59.42 ± 17.78, EPC T1: 63.40 ± 18.03, T2: 56.86 ± 15.15 (p= .780) were not significant. BLa concentration decreased significantly from peak BLa at 5 minute post-WAnT to 20 minutes post-WAnT in all trials (PR: p =.000, AR: p =.000, ECP: p =.000 ). However the mean difference in BLa (mmol•L-1) levels at 20 minutes post-WAnT and 5 minutes post-WAnT were 2.6 in PR, 4.0 in AR and 2.7 in ECP. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicated performance was better maintained with the use of EPC and AR. Therefore, the use of EPC may be a feasible alternative method when static recovery is desired.