RECOVERY MYTH'S

CLUB RECHARGE prides ourselves on following the science behind the recovery process and not the hype.   Many products on the market today make claims to do extraordinary things to help people recover from an athletic performance or injury without so much as one clinical trial to back up their claims.  We have dedicated this section of our site to inform you of the actual science behind some of the claims made in the wellness & recovery industry.  Below is the results of the science for you to decide for yourself.

FOAM ROLLERS VS STRETCHING

ACUTE EFFECTS OF DEEP TISSUE FOAM ROLLING AND DYNAMIC STRETCHING ON MUSCULAR STRENGTH, POWER, AND FLEXIBILITY IN DIVISION I LINEMEN

The study examined 14 Division 1 athletes and compared the effects of using a foam roller versus dynamic stretching and the results where basically a statistical tie.

RESULTS For peak VJ power, the DTR group and the DS group slightly outperformed the baseline assessment (2.1% vs. 0.8%, respectively); however, no significant (p = 0.45) differences were found among the groups (Table 2). Similarly, the repeated-measures ANOVA yielded no significant differences among the groups for average VJ power (p = 0.16) (Table 3). Regarding peak and average VJ velocity, neither dependent variable resulted in group differences (p = 0.0.25 and p = 0.23, respectively) (Tables 4 and 5). No statistical significant differences were found for either peak knee extension isometric torque (p = 0.37) (Table 6) or average knee extension isometric torque (p = 0.62) (Table 7). Furthermore, no statistical significant differences were found for peak and average knee flexion isometric torque (p = 0.22 and p = 0.11, respectively). Interestingly, the baseline torques for both knee extension and knee flexion were greater than for either post-DTR or post-DS (Tables 8 and 9). For hip flexion ROM, both DTR and DS were significantly (p = 0.0001) greater than baseline measurements (Table 10). The DTR group demonstrated a 15.6%

DO COMPRESSION BOOTS WORK

EFFECTS OF COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE PNEUMATIC COMPRESSION ON MUSCLE GLYCOGEN RECOVERY AFTER EXERCISE

The study examined 10 athletes after performing the exact same exercise sets were compared and below are the results.

RESULTS

Muscle Glycogen There was no difference in postexercise muscle glycogen concentrations between the pneumatic compressive device (PCD) condition and for the PR (Figure 2). There was a main effect for time (p # 0.05) indicating an increase in muscle glycogen after 4 hours of recovery, but there was no difference between treatments. The rate of glycogen resynthesis was not different between conditions (6.9 6 0.8 vs. 6.9 6 0.5 mmol$kg21 wet wt$h21 for the PCD and PR trials, respectively).

Plasma Glucose Plasma glucose concentrations were not different between PCD and PR trials at each time point (Figure 3). The blood glucose concentration was elevated above postexercise (time 0) for 150 minutes after the initial CHO feeding and dropped below baseline at the end of the recovery period (240 minutes), main effect for time, p # 0.05. Glucose AUC was not different between trials, 346 6 55 mmol$L21$h21 for the PCD trial, and 325 6 48 mmol$L21$h21 for the PR trial.

Plasma Insulin Plasma insulin concentrations were not different between PCD and PR trials at each time point (Figure 4). The blood insulin concentration was elevated above postexercise (time 0) baseline at all time points during the recovery period after CHO feeding, main effect for time, p # 0.05. Insulin AUC was not different between trials, 2980 6 777 mIU$ml21 $h21 for the PCD trial, and 2873 6 836 mIU$ml21 $h21 for the PR trial.

Lactate Blood lactate concentrations were not different between PCD and PR trials at each time point (Figure 5). The blood lactate concentration was lower after 60 minutes (the last interval) at all time points for the end of the ride and during the recovery period, main effect for time, p # 0.05.

Heart Rate Average heart rate was not different between PCD and PR trials during 0–60 minutes during the recovery period (76 6 4 vs. 78 6 4 b$min21, respectively) and 120–180 minutes (70 6 4 vs. 71 6 4 b$min21, respectively). However, there was a main effect for time demonstrating that the average heart rate was lower during the 120- to 180-minute measurement period compared with the initial hour of recovery (71 6 4 vs. 77 6 4 b$min21 for 120–180 and 0–60 minutes, respectively, p # 0.05).