Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation: No Enhancement of Recovery From Maximal Exercise

Abstract

Purpose:To investigate the use of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) during acute recovery between 2 bouts of maximal aerobic exercise.Methods:On 3 separate days, 19 trained male cyclists (28 ± 7 y, 76.4 ± 10.4 kg, power output at maximal aerobic power [pVo2max] 417 ± 44 W) performed a 3-min maximal cycling bout at 105% PVo2max before a 30-min randomly assigned recovery intervention of passive (PAS: resting), active (ACT: 30% PVo2max), or NMES (5 Hz, 4 pulses at 500 μs). Immediately afterward, a cycle bout at 95% PVo2max to exhaustion (TLIM) was performed. Heart rate (HR) and blood lactate (BLa) were recorded at designated time points. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA with a Tukey honestly significantly different post hoc test. Statistical significance threshold was P < .05.Results:The TLIM was significantly shorter for NMES than for ACT (199.6 ± 69.4 s vs 250.7 ± 105.5 s: P = .016) but not PAS recovery (199.6 ± 69.4 s vs 216.4 ± 77.5 s: P = .157). The TLIM was not significantly different between ACT and PAS (250.7 ± 105.5 s vs 216.4 ± 77.5 s: P = .088). The decline in BLa was significantly greater during ACT than NMES and PAS recovery (P < .001), with no difference between NMES and PAS. In addition, HR was significantly higher during ACT than NMES and PAS recovery (P < .001), with no difference between NMES and PAS.Conclusions:NMES was less effective than ACT and comparable to PAS recovery when used between 2 bouts of maximal aerobic exercise in trained male cyclists.

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

“…However, no benefits were found for any of the remaining outcomes. Similarly, Malone et al (2012Malone et al ( , 2014b reported no differences when using NMES or total rest as recovery, on performance or different physiological markers (blood lactate, HR). Thus, further evidence is needed to support an eventual superiority of NMES over total rest for recovery after strenuous exercise, although the potential benefits we found on perceived recovery-which could also be due, at least partly, to a certain placebo effect-should not be overlooked.…”

“…Controversy exists, however, on the effectiveness of NMES as a recovery strategy, and indeed a meta-analysis reported mixed or no evidence compared to either passive or active recovery (Malone et al, 2014a). Later studies have reported a beneficial effect of post-exercise NMES over passive recovery on different outcomes including muscle inflow, lactate removal, or performance (Bieuzen et al, 2014;Taylor et al, 2015;Borne et al, 2017), although other authors have found similar effects with both strategies (Malone et al, 2012(Malone et al, , 2014b. For instance, Malone et al compared the effects of 30 min of NMES, active recovery (low-intensity cycling) and passive recovery after high-intensity intermittent exercise (consecutive Wingate anaerobic tests) in healthy trained male triathletes, and found a higher blood lactate removal with active recovery but overall comparable effects on performance across all recovery modalities (Malone et al, 2012).…”