Neuromuscular electrical stimulation via the peroneal nerve is superior to graduated compression socks in reducing perceived muscle soreness following intense intermittent endurance exercise.
Level 2 - randomized trial
Controlled crossover clinical trial in humans
PubMed 25011496 · doi:10.1007/s00421-014-2943-5
What was done
Twenty-one healthy males (age 21 ± 1 years, height 179 ± 7 cm, body mass 76 ± 9 kg) performed a 90-min intermittent shuttle running test on three occasions. Following exercise, participants underwent one of three recovery interventions: passive recovery (CON), graduated compression socks (GCS), or neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) via the peroneal nerve. Outcomes measured pre-exercise and at 0, 1, 24, 48, and 72 h post-exercise included perceived muscle soreness (PMS), isometric maximal voluntary contraction of knee extensors and flexors, and venous blood concentrations of creatine kinase (CK), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), IL-6, and CRP.
What was found
PMS increased across all conditions immediately, 1 h, and 24 h post-exercise. At 24 h post-exercise, PMS was lower with NMES (2.0 ± 1.6) compared to GCS (3.2 ± 2.1) and CON (4.6 ± 2.0). At 48 h post-exercise, PMS was lower with NMES compared to CON (1.3 ± 1.5 vs. 3.1 ± 1.8). No significant differences were observed between treatments for knee extensor or flexor muscle strength, CK activity, LDH activity, IL-6 concentration, or CRP concentration at any time point.
Why it matters
This study indicates that peroneal nerve electrical stimulation provides modest relief from subjective muscle soreness after intense intermittent running. However, because it fails to improve objective functional strength or biomarkers of muscle damage and inflammation, its physiological recovery benefits appear limited.
Limits
The study sample was small (n = 21) and restricted entirely to young, healthy males. The only observed benefit was in subjective perceived soreness, an outcome highly vulnerable to placebo effects and lack of blinding, whereas objective physiological and mechanical markers showed no treatment effect. The abstract does not specify whether the order of testing conditions was randomized.
Cited by
- partial Neuromuscular electrical stimulation devices (such as Firefly) have been shown in multiple studies to be effective for athletic recovery.