| Literature DB >> 33291311 |
Yi-Horng Lai1, Ai-Yi Wang2, Chia-Chi Yang3, Lan-Yuen Guo2,3,4,5.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the effect of vibrating rollers on skin blood flow after running for recovery from muscle fatigue.Entities:
Keywords: blood flow oscillation; recovery of muscle fatigue; skin blood flow; vibrating roller
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33291311 PMCID: PMC7730244 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17239118
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Characteristics of the demographic data.
| Title 1 | Male | Female |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 26.2 ± 5.2 | 26.6 ± 7.8 |
| Height (m) | 169.5 ± 3.9 | 156.8 ± 5.1 |
Figure 1The flow diagram of the protocol.
Figure 2The procedure of roller treatment.
Figure 3The vibrating roller.
Figure 4The skin blood flow measurement.
Figure 5An example of typical records of skin blood flow perfusion (a) and blood flow oscillation spectrum (b).
The experimental result of skin blood flow (SBF; A.U.) and normalized energy of blood flow oscillation (BFO; %).
| Prerun | Postrun | Postroller | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBF | Foam roller | 35.1 (17.4) | 55.6 (37.8) | 40.7 (20.8) |
| Vibrating roller | 33.3 (16.8) | 46.2 (23.0) | 50.1 (41.6) | |
| BFO | Foam roller | 11.1 (6.0) | 11.0 (5.3) | 11.4 (5.4) |
| Vibrating roller | 10.5 (6.1) | 10.6 (4.2) | 12.5 (7.9) | |
| BFO | Foam roller | 7.6 (3.0) | 6.5 (4.1) | 7.0 (4.0) |
| Vibrating roller | 7.0 (4.3) | 5.6 (2.4) | 6.3 (2.9) | |
| BFO | Foam roller | 15.9 (5.0) | 16.0 (6.0) | 18.0 (6.8) |
| Vibrating roller | 13.6 (5.8) | 16.4 (5.1) | 17.8 (6.9) | |
Values are mean(standard deviation).
Figure 6The SBF trend between prerun, postrun, and post-roller.
Two-way ANOVA analysis of SBF and normalized energy of BFO.
| F Value | df |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBF | Roller | 0.018 | 1 | 0.894 | 0.0001 |
| Time | 9.810 | 2 | 0.001 * | 0.1294 | |
| Roller × Time | 1.128 | 2 | 0.343 | 0.0168 | |
| BFO | Roller | 0.163 | 1 | 0.690 | 0.0012 |
| Time | 0.891 | 2 | 0.425 | 0.0133 | |
| Roller × Time | 0.283 | 2 | 0.756 | 0.0043 | |
| BFO | Roller | 2.931 | 1 | 0.101 | 0.0217 |
| Time | 1.338 | 2 | 0.284 | 0.0199 | |
| Roller × Time | 0.031 | 2 | 0.970 | 0.0005 | |
| BFO | Roller | 0.733 | 1 | 0.401 | 0.0055 |
| Time | 4.439 | 2 | 0.025 * | 0.0630 | |
| Roller × Time | 1.298 | 2 | 0.294 | 0.0193 |
* Significant difference (p < 0.05).
Two-way ANOVA posthoc analysis of SBF (A.U.).
| Roller | Section (I) | Section (J) | Difference (J-I) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foam roller | Prerun | Postrun | 20.536 (7.130) | 0.026 * |
| Prerun | Postroller | 5.579 (3.762) | 0.457 | |
| Postrun | Postroller | −14.957 (7.981) | 0.223 | |
| Vibrating roller | Prerun | Postrun | 12.988 (5.306) | 0.068 |
| Prerun | Postroller | 16.903 (7.890) | 0.130 | |
| Postrun | Postroller | 3.915 (8.680) | 1 |
* Significant difference (p < 0.05).
The analysis of relative changes in normalized SBF and BFO (%).
| Intervention | Pair Difference | df |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBF | Prerun vs. | Foam roller | 27.90% (78.44) | 22 | 0.04 * |
| Postroller | Vibrating roller | 79.23%(137.33) | |||
| Postrun vs. | Foam roller | −2.21% (97.52) | 22 | 0.24 | |
| Postroller | Vibrating roller | 19.00%(91.59) | |||
| BFO | Prerun vs. | Foam roller | 33.10% (79.17) | 22 | 0.32 |
| Postroller | Vibrating roller | 46.47% (102.10) | |||
| Postrun vs. | Foam roller | 19.38% (60.35) | 22 | 0.12 | |
| Postroller | Vibrating roller | 53.08% (138.63) | |||
| BFO | Prerun vs. | Foam roller | −4.11% (58.59) | 22 | 0.42 |
| Postroller | Vibrating roller | −7.16% (50.73) | |||
| Postrun vs. | Foam roller | 12.77% (55.25) | 22 | 0.27 | |
| Postroller | Vibrating roller | 23.61% (67.43) | |||
| BFO | Prerun vs. | Foam roller | 13.52% (34.34) | 22 | 0.03 * |
| Postroller | Vibrating roller | 55.19% (99.48) | |||
| Postrun vs. | Foam roller | 21.16% (72.93) | 22 | 0.43 | |
| Postroller | Vibrating roller | 17.65% (45.58) | |||
* Significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 7The trend plot of normalized energy in myogenic frequency band.