West Amy D, Cooke Matthew B, LaBounty Paul M, Byars Allyn G, Greenwood Mike
1Department of Pediatric Endocrinology, The School of Medicine and Children's Hospital, University of Colorado, Denver, Aurora, Colorado; 2College of Health and Biomedicine, University of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; 3Department of Health, Human Performance, and Recreation, Baylor University, Waco, Texas; 4Department of Kinesiology, Angelo State University, San Angelo, Texas; and 5Department of Health and Kinesiology, Exercise and Sport Nutrition, Texas A and M University, College Station, Texas.
J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Dec;28(12):3453-61. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000577.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 3 treatment modes (Anti-Gravity Treadmill [G-trainer], stationary cycling [CompuTrainer], and static stretching) on the physiological and psychological recovery after an acute bout of exhaustive exercise. In a crossover design, 12 aerobically trained men (21.3 ± 2.3 years, 72.1 ± 8.1 kg, 178.4 ± 6.3 cm, (Equation is included in full-text article.): 53.7 ± 6.3 ml·kg·min) completed a 29-km stationary cycling time trial. Immediately after the time trial, subjects completed 30 minutes of G-trainer or CompuTrainer (40% (Equation is included in full-text article.)) or static stretching exercises. A significant time effect was detected for plasma lactate (p = 0.010) and serum cortisol (p = 0.039) after exercise. No treatment or treatment by time interaction was identified for lactate or cortisol, respectively. No main effects for time, treatment, or treatment by time interaction were identified for interleukin 6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α). No differences were observed among treatments in skeletal muscle peak power output, mean power output, time to peak power, and rate to fatigue at 24 hours postexercise bout. Finally, no significant changes in mood status were observed after exercise and between treatment groups. When compared with stationary cycling and static stretching, exercise recovery performed on the G-trainer was unable to reduce systemic markers of stress and inflammation, blood lactate, or improve anaerobic performance and psychological mood states after an exhaustive bout of endurance exercise. Further research is warranted that includes individualized recovery modalities to create balances between the stresses of training and competition.
本研究的目的是比较三种治疗模式（反重力跑步机[G训练器]、固定自行车运动[CompuTrainer]和静态拉伸）对急性力竭运动后生理和心理恢复的效果。在交叉设计中，12名有氧训练男性（21.3±2.3岁，72.1±8.1kg，178.4±6.3cm，（公式包含在全文中）：53.7±6.3ml·kg·min）完成了一次29公里的固定自行车计时赛。计时赛后，受试者立即完成30分钟的G训练器或CompuTrainer（40%（公式包含在全文中））或静态拉伸运动。运动后血浆乳酸（p = 0.010）和血清皮质醇（p = 0.039）检测到显著的时间效应。乳酸或皮质醇分别未发现治疗或治疗与时间的交互作用。白细胞介素6（IL-6）和肿瘤坏死因子α（TNF-α）未发现时间、治疗或治疗与时间交互作用的主效应。运动后24小时，各治疗组在骨骼肌峰值功率输出、平均功率输出、达到峰值功率的时间和疲劳率方面未观察到差异。最后，运动后及各治疗组之间情绪状态未观察到显著变化。与固定自行车运动和静态拉伸相比，在G训练器上进行的运动恢复无法降低应激和炎症的全身标志物、血乳酸，也无法改善力竭性耐力运动后的无氧运动表现和心理情绪状态。有必要进行进一步的研究，包括个性化的恢复方式，以在训练和比赛压力之间取得平衡。
