↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of wearing compression garments during post-exercise period after two repeated bouts of strenuous exercise: a randomized crossover design in healthy, active males

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine - Open, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy of wearing compression garments during post-exercise period after two repeated bouts of strenuous exercise: a randomized crossover design in healthy, active males
Published in
Sports Medicine - Open, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40798-017-0092-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kazushige Goto, Sahiro Mizuno, Ayaka Mori

Abstract

The efficacy of wearing [a] compression garment (CG) between repeated bouts of exercise within a same day has not been fully understood. The present study determined the effect of wearing a CG after strenuous exercise sessions (consisting of sprint exercise, resistance exercise, drop jump) twice a day on exercise performance, muscle damage, and inflammatory responses. Eleven physically active males (age, 22.7 ± 0.9 years; height, 175.7 ± 6.7 cm; body mass, 73.6 ± 10.2 kg; BMI, 23.8 ± 2.7 kg/m(2)) performed two trials (a randomized crossover design), consisting of the trial with either wearing a whole-body CG during post-exercise period (CG trial) or the trial with wearing a normal garment without specific pressure (CON trial). Two exercise sessions were conducted in the morning (09:00-10:00, Ex1) and afternoon (14:00-15:00, Ex2). Immediately after completing 60 min of each exercise, the subjects in the CG trial changed into a whole-body CG. Time-course changes in exercise performance (bench press power, jump performances, repeated sprint ability), blood variables (lactate, glucose, myoglobin, creatine kinase, interleukin-6, leptin), and scores of subjective feeling (fatigue, muscle soreness) were compared between the CG and CON trials before Ex1 (8:40), immediately before Ex2 (14:00, 4 h after Ex1), 4 h after Ex2 (19:00), and 24 h after the onset of Ex1 (9:00). Two bouts of exercise significantly decreased performances of counter movement jump (main effect for time: P = 0.04, F = 3.75, partial η (2) = 0.27) and rebound jump (main effect for time: P = 0.00, F = 12.22, partial η (2) = 0.55), while no significant difference was observed between the two trials (interaction: P = 0.10, F = 1.96, partial η (2) = 0.16 for counter movement jump, P = 0.93, F = 0.01, partial η (2) = 0.001 for rebound jump). Repeated sprint ability (power output during 10 × 6 s maximal sprint, 30-s rest periods between sprints) did not differ significantly between the two trials at any time points. Power output during bench press exercise was not significantly different between the two trials (interaction: P = 0.46, F = 0.99, partial η (2) = 0.09 for Ex1, P = 0.74, F = 0.38, partial η (2) = 0.04 for Ex2, P = 0.22, F = 1.54, partial η (2) = 0.13 for 24 h after the onset of Ex1). Serum myoglobin, creatine kinase, leptin, and plasma interleukin-6 were not significantly different between the two trials (interaction: P = 0.16, F = 2.23, partial η (2) = 0.18 for myoglobin; P = 0.39, F = 0.81, partial η (2) = 0.08 for creatine kinase; P = 0.28, F = 1.30, partial η (2) = 0.13 for leptin; P = 0.34, F = 1.05, partial η (2) = 0.12 for interleukin-6). Muscle soreness at 24 h during post-exercise period was significantly lower in the CG trial than in the CON trial for pectoralis major muscle (P = 0.04), while the value was inversely lower in the CON trial for hamstring (P = 0.047). Wearing a whole-body CG during the post-exercise period after two bouts of strenuous exercise sessions separated with 4 h of rest did not promote recovery of muscle function for lower limb muscles nor did it attenuate exercise-induced muscle damage in physically active males.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Master 7 9%
Researcher 5 6%
Lecturer 4 5%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 24 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 27 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 11%
Engineering 5 6%
Computer Science 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 28 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,598,775
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine - Open
#272
of 476 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,490
of 313,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine - Open
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 476 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 313,820 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.