↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Whole-Body Cryotherapy vs. Far-Infrared vs. Passive Modalities on Recovery from Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage in Highly-Trained Runners

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
24 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users
q&a
1 Q&A thread
video
4 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
168 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
448 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of Whole-Body Cryotherapy vs. Far-Infrared vs. Passive Modalities on Recovery from Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage in Highly-Trained Runners
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0027749
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christophe Hausswirth, Julien Louis, François Bieuzen, Hervé Pournot, Jean Fournier, Jean-Robert Filliard, Jeanick Brisswalter

Abstract

Enhanced recovery following physical activity and exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) has become a priority for athletes. Consequently, a number of post-exercise recovery strategies are used, often without scientific evidence of their benefits. Within this framework, the purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of whole body cryotherapy (WBC), far infrared (FIR) or passive (PAS) modalities in hastening muscular recovery within the 48 hours after a simulated trail running race. In 3 non-adjoining weeks, 9 well-trained runners performed 3 repetitions of a simulated trail run on a motorized treadmill, designed to induce muscle damage. Immediately (post), post 24 h, and post 48 h after exercise, all participants tested three different recovery modalities (WBC, FIR, PAS) in a random order over the three separate weeks. Markers of muscle damage (maximal isometric muscle strength, plasma creatine kinase [CK] activity and perceived sensations [i.e. pain, tiredness, well-being]) were recorded before, immediately after (post), post 1 h, post 24 h, and post 48 h after exercise. In all testing sessions, the simulated 48 min trail run induced a similar, significant amount of muscle damage. Maximal muscle strength and perceived sensations were recovered after the first WBC session (post 1 h), while recovery took 24 h with FIR, and was not attained through the PAS recovery modality. No differences in plasma CK activity were recorded between conditions. Three WBC sessions performed within the 48 hours after a damaging running exercise accelerate recovery from EIMD to a greater extent than FIR or PAS modalities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 448 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 437 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 83 19%
Student > Master 70 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 11%
Researcher 49 11%
Other 22 5%
Other 83 19%
Unknown 90 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 140 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 77 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 50 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 4%
Social Sciences 9 2%
Other 47 10%
Unknown 106 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 103. 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 29 June 2022.
All research outputs
#363,607
of 23,544,633 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#5,273
of 201,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,874
of 244,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#52
of 2,879 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,544,633 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 201,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 244,551 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,879 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.