OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of local effleurage massage on the recovery from fatigue in the small hand muscles. METHODS: This study was a within-subject repeated measure design. Twelve healthy, right-handed volunteer male subjects with a mean age of 25 +/- 2.8 years were recruited into the study from a university population. Subjects were randomly allocated to a rest or massage protocol. Subjects undertook the alternate protocol at a subsequent session. All subjects underwent baseline dynamometry testing of isometric thumb adduction (nondominant hand) before undertaking a fatigue-inducing task of the thumb adductors. Subjects then underwent either 5 minutes of massage applied to the first dorsal interspace or 5 minutes of rest. Subjects were then retested. RESULTS: The maximal force recorded after the massage protocol was not significantly different from the maximal force recorded after the rest protocol, with a mean difference of only 0.63 N (95% confidence interval, -12.55 to 13.80 N; P = .92). The maximal gradient of force development after the massage protocol was not significantly different from the maximal gradient recorded after the rest protocol, with a mean decrease in gradient of 19.48 N/s (95% confidence interval, -117.33 to 156.30 N; P = .77). CONCLUSIONS:Effleurage massage was not an effective intervention for enhancing the restoration of postfatigue F(max) and G(max) in the small muscles of the hand. The wide variation in response to this massage protocol may support the notion that there is no universal effect of effleurage massage in enhancing recovery from fatigue.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of local effleurage massage on the recovery from fatigue in the small hand muscles. METHODS: This study was a within-subject repeated measure design. Twelve healthy, right-handed volunteer male subjects with a mean age of 25 +/- 2.8 years were recruited into the study from a university population. Subjects were randomly allocated to a rest or massage protocol. Subjects undertook the alternate protocol at a subsequent session. All subjects underwent baseline dynamometry testing of isometric thumb adduction (nondominant hand) before undertaking a fatigue-inducing task of the thumb adductors. Subjects then underwent either 5 minutes of massage applied to the first dorsal interspace or 5 minutes of rest. Subjects were then retested. RESULTS: The maximal force recorded after the massage protocol was not significantly different from the maximal force recorded after the rest protocol, with a mean difference of only 0.63 N (95% confidence interval, -12.55 to 13.80 N; P = .92). The maximal gradient of force development after the massage protocol was not significantly different from the maximal gradient recorded after the rest protocol, with a mean decrease in gradient of 19.48 N/s (95% confidence interval, -117.33 to 156.30 N; P = .77). CONCLUSIONS: Effleurage massage was not an effective intervention for enhancing the restoration of postfatigue F(max) and G(max) in the small muscles of the hand. The wide variation in response to this massage protocol may support the notion that there is no universal effect of effleurage massage in enhancing recovery from fatigue.
Authors: Wigand Poppendieck; Melissa Wegmann; Alexander Ferrauti; Michael Kellmann; Mark Pfeiffer; Tim Meyer Journal: Sports Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 11.136