| Title |
Does electrical stimulation enhance post-exercise performance recovery?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-011-2117-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicolas Babault, Carole Cometti, Nicola A. Maffiuletti, Gaëlle Deley |
| Abstract |
Elite sport requires high-volume and high-intensity training that inevitably induces neuromuscular fatigue detrimental for physical performance. Improving recovery processes is, therefore, fundamental and to this, a wide variety of recovery modalities could be proposed. Among them, neuromuscular electrical stimulation is largely adopted particularly by endurance-type and team sport athletes. This type of solicitation, when used with low stimulation frequencies, induces contractions of short duration and low intensity comparable to active recovery. This might be of interest to favour muscle blood flow and therefore metabolites washout to accelerate recovery kinetics during and after fatiguing exercises, training sessions or competition. However, although electrical stimulation is often used for recovery, limited evidence exists regarding its effects for an improvement of most physiological variables or reduced subjective rating of muscle soreness. Therefore, the main aim of this brief review is to present recent results from the literature to clarify the effectiveness of electrical stimulation as a recovery modality. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 38% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 23% |
| Spain | 2 | 15% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 77% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 306 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 295 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 58 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 37 | 12% |
| Researcher | 36 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 54 | 18% |
| Unknown | 67 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 99 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 4% |
| Engineering | 12 | 4% |
| Other | 32 | 10% |
| Unknown | 84 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,879,893
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#609
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,605
of 133,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#14
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 133,268 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.