Is Low-Frequency Electrical Stimulation a Tool for Recovery after a Water Rescue? A Cross-Over Study with Lifeguards

Roberto Barcala-Furelos, Alicia González-Represas, Ezequiel Rey, Alicia Martínez-Rodríguez, Anton Kalén, Olga Marques and Luís Rama
Additional contact information
Roberto Barcala-Furelos: REMOSS Research Group, Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences, University of Vigo, 36005 Pontevedra, Spain
Alicia González-Represas: Department of Functional Biology and Health Sciences, Faculty of Physiotherapy, University of Vigo, 36005 Vigo, Spain
Ezequiel Rey: REMOSS Research Group, Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences, University of Vigo, 36005 Pontevedra, Spain
Alicia Martínez-Rodríguez: Department of Physiotherapy, Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Universidade da Coruña, 15006 La Coruña, Spain
Anton Kalén: REMOSS Research Group, Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences, University of Vigo, 36005 Pontevedra, Spain
Olga Marques: Faculty of Sports Sciences and Physical Education, University of Coimbra, 3040-156 Coimbra, Portugal
Luís Rama: Faculty of Sports Sciences and Physical Education, University of Coimbra, 3040-156 Coimbra, Portugal

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 16, 1-10

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.

Keywords: transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation; task performance and analysis; tensiomyography; lactate; lifesaving (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/16/5854/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/16/5854/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:16:p:5854-:d:398110

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().