| Title |
Lower limb compression garment improves recovery from exercise-induced muscle damage in young, active females
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, April 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-010-1464-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John R. Jakeman, Chris Byrne, Roger G. Eston |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of lower limb compression as a recovery strategy following exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD). Seventeen female volunteers completed 10 x 10 plyometric drop jumps from a 0.6-m box to induce muscle damage. Participants were randomly allocated to a passive recovery (n = 9) or a compression treatment (n = 8) group. Treatment group volunteers wore full leg compression stockings for 12 h immediately following damaging exercise. Passive recovery group participants had no intervention. Indirect indices of muscle damage (muscle soreness, creatine kinase activity, knee extensor concentric strength, and vertical jump performance) were assessed prior to and 1, 24, 48, 72, and 96 h following plyometric exercise. Plyometric exercise had a significant effect (p < or = 0.05) on all indices of muscle damage. The compression treatment reduced decrements in countermovement jump performance (passive recovery 88.1 +/- 2.8% vs. treatment 95.2 +/- 2.9% of pre-exercise), squat jump performance (82.3 +/- 1.9% vs. 94.5 +/- 2%), and knee extensor strength loss (81.6 +/- 3% vs. 93 +/- 3.2%), and reduced muscle soreness (4.0 +/- 0.23 vs. 2.4 +/- 0.24), but had no significant effect on creatine kinase activity. The results indicate that compression clothing is an effective recovery strategy following exercise-induced muscle damage. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 281 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 273 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 47 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 44 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 12% |
| Researcher | 28 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 53 | 19% |
| Unknown | 62 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 96 | 34% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 13% |
| Engineering | 18 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 28 | 10% |
| Unknown | 80 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 September 2019.
All research outputs
#14,502,924
of 25,728,350 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#2,682
of 4,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,238
of 103,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#24
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,350 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,385 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 103,541 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.