Is low-frequency electrical stimulation a tool for recovery after a water rescue? a cross-over study with lifeguards

UDC.coleccionInvestigaciónes_ES
UDC.departamentoPsicoloxíaes_ES
UDC.grupoInvIntervención Psicosocial e Rehabilitación Funcionales_ES
UDC.issue16es_ES
UDC.journalTitleInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Healthes_ES
UDC.startPage5854es_ES
UDC.volume17es_ES
dc.contributor.authorBarcala-Furelos, Roberto
dc.contributor.authorGonzález-Represas, Alicia
dc.contributor.authorRey, Ezequiel
dc.contributor.authorMartínez-Rodríguez, Alicia
dc.contributor.authorKalén, Anton
dc.contributor.authorMarques, Olga
dc.contributor.authorRama, Luís
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-17T10:15:35Z
dc.date.available2020-09-17T10:15:35Z
dc.date.issued2020-08-12
dc.description.abstract[Abstract] This study aimed to evaluate the degree to which transcutaneous electrical stimulation (ES) enhanced recovery following a simulated water rescue. Twenty-six lifeguards participated in this study. The rescue consisted of swimming 100 m with fins and rescue-tube: 50 m swim approach and 50 m tow-in a simulated victim. Blood lactate clearance, rated perceived effort (RPE), and muscle contractile properties were evaluated at baseline, after the water rescue, and after ES or passive-recovery control condition (PR) protocol. Tensiomiography, RPE, and blood lactate basal levels indicated equivalence between both groups. There was no change in tensiomiography from pre to post-recovery and no difference between recovery protocols. Overall-RPE, legs-RPE and arms-RPE after ES (mean ± SD; 2.7 ± 1.53, 2.65 ± 1.66, and 2.30 ± 1.84, respectively) were moderately lower than after PR (3.57 ± 2.4, 3.71 ± 2.43, and 3.29 ± 1.79, respectively) (p = 0.016, p = 0.010, p = 0.028, respectively). There was a significantly lower blood lactate level after recovery in ES than in PR (mean ± SD; 4.77 ± 1.86 mmol·L−1 vs. 6.27 ± 3.69 mmol·L−1; p = 0.045). Low-frequency ES immediately after a water rescue is an effective recovery strategy to clear out blood lactate concentration.es_ES
dc.identifier.citationBarcala-Furelos R, González-Represas A, Rey E, Martínez-Rodríguez A, Kalén A, Marques O, Rama L. Is low-frequency electrical stimulation a tool for recovery after a water rescue? a cross-over study with lifeguards. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Aug 12;17(16):5854.es_ES
dc.identifier.issn1661-7827
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2183/26203
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherMDPIes_ES
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165854es_ES
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0)es_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopen accesses_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subjectTranscutaneous electric nerve stimulationes_ES
dc.subjectTask performance and analysises_ES
dc.subjectTensiomyographyes_ES
dc.subjectLactatees_ES
dc.subjectLifesavinges_ES
dc.titleIs low-frequency electrical stimulation a tool for recovery after a water rescue? a cross-over study with lifeguardses_ES
dc.typejournal articlees_ES
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication1ac65590-4363-425f-be31-379125689af6
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery1ac65590-4363-425f-be31-379125689af6

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
MartinezRodriguez_Alicia_2020_Is_Low_Frequency_Electrical_Stimulation.pdf
Size:
740.88 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: