ESECS - Artigos em revistas internacionais
URI permanente para esta coleção:
Navegar
Percorrer ESECS - Artigos em revistas internacionais por Domínios Científicos e Tecnológicos (FOS) "Ciências Naturais::Ciências Biológicas"
A mostrar 1 - 2 de 2
Resultados por página
Opções de ordenação
- Are Young Swimmers Short and Middle Distances Energy Cost Sex-Specific?Publication . Massini, Danilo A.; Almeida, Tiago A. F.; Vasconcelos, Camila M. T.; Macedo, Anderson G.; Espada, Mário A. C.; Reis, Joana F.; Alves, Francisco J. B.; Fernandes, Ricardo J. P.; Filho, Dalton M. PessôaThis study assessed the energy cost in swimming (C) during short and middle distances to analyze the sex-specific responses of C during supramaximal velocity and whether body composition account to the expected differences. Twenty-six swimmers (13 men and 13 women: 16.7 ± 1.9 vs. 15.5 ± 2.8 years old and 70.8 ± 10.6 vs. 55.9 ± 7.0 kg of weight) performed maximal front crawl swimming trials in 50, 100, and 200 m. The oxygen uptake ((Formula presented.) O2) was analyzed along with the tests (and post-exercise) through a portable gas analyser connected to a respiratory snorkel. Blood samples were collected before and after exercise (at the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th min) to determine blood lactate concentration [La–]. The lean mass of the trunk (LMTrunk), upper limb (LMUL), and lower limb (LMLL) was assessed using dual X-ray energy absorptiometry. Anaerobic energy demand was calculated from the phosphagen and glycolytic components, with the first corresponding to the fast component of the (Formula presented.) O2 bi-exponential recovery phase and the second from the 2.72 ml × kg–1 equivalent for each 1.0 mmol × L–1 [La–] variation above the baseline value. The aerobic demand was obtained from the integral value of the (Formula presented.) O2 vs. swimming time curve. The C was estimated by the rate between total energy releasing (in Joules) and swimming velocity. The sex effect on C for each swimming trial was verified by the two-way ANOVA (Bonferroni post hoc test) and the relationships between LMTrunk, LMUL, and LMLL to C were tested by Pearson coefficient. The C was higher for men than women in 50 (1.8 ± 0.3 vs. 1.3 ± 0.3 kJ × m–1), 100 (1.4 ± 0.1 vs. 1.0 ± 0.2 kJ × m–1), and 200 m (1.0 ± 0.2 vs. 0.8 ± 0.1 kJ × m–1) with p < 0.01 for all comparisons. In addition, C differed between distances for each sex (p < 0.01). The regional LMTrunk (26.5 ± 3.6 vs. 20.1 ± 2.6 kg), LMUL (6.8 ± 1.0 vs. 4.3 ± 0.8 kg), and LMLL (20.4 ± 2.6 vs. 13.6 ± 2.5 kg) for men vs. women were significantly correlated to C in 50 (R2adj = 0.73), 100 (R2adj = 0.61), and 200 m (R2adj = 0.60, p < 0.01). Therefore, the increase in C with distance is higher for men than women and is determined by the lean mass in trunk and upper and lower limbs independent of the differences in body composition between sexes.
- The Effectiveness of Post-exercise Stretching in Short-Term and Delayed Recovery of Strength, Range of Motion and Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled TrialsPublication . Afonso, José; Clemente, Filipe Manuel; Nakamura, Fábio Yuzo; Morouço, Pedro; Sarmento, Hugo; Inman, Richard A.; Ramirez-Campillo, RodrigoBackground: Post-exercise (i.e., cool-down) stretching is commonly prescribed for improving recovery of strength and range of motion (ROM) and diminishing delayed onset muscular soreness (DOMS) after physical exertion. However, the question remains if post-exercise stretching is better for recovery than other post-exercise modalities. Objective: To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of supervised randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of post-exercise stretching on short-term (≤1 h after exercise) and delayed (e.g., ≥24 h) recovery makers (i.e., DOMS, strength, ROM) in comparison with passive recovery or alternative recovery methods (e.g., low-intensity cycling). Methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42020222091). RCTs published in any language or date were eligible, according to P.I.C.O.S. criteria. Searches were performed in eight databases. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2. Meta-analyses used the inverse variance random-effects model. GRADE was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. Results: From 17,050 records retrieved, 11 RCTs were included for qualitative analyses and 10 for meta-analysis (n = 229 participants; 17–38 years, mostly males). The exercise protocols varied between studies (e.g., cycling, strength training). Post-exercise stretching included static stretching, passive stretching, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation. Passive recovery (i.e., rest) was used as comparator in eight studies, with additional recovery protocols including low intensity cycling or running, massage, and cold-water immersion. Risk of bias was high in ~70% of the studies. Between-group comparisons showed no effect of post-exercise stretching on strength recovery (ES = −0.08; 95% CI = −0.54–0.39; p = 0.750; I2 = 0.0%; Egger's test p = 0.531) when compared to passive recovery. In addition, no effect of post-exercise stretching on 24, 48, or 72-h post-exercise DOMS was noted when compared to passive recovery (ES = −0.09 to −0.24; 95% CI = −0.70–0.28; p = 0.187–629; I2 = 0.0%; Egger's test p = 0.165–0.880). Conclusion: There wasn't sufficient statistical evidence to reject the null hypothesis that stretching and passive recovery have equivalent influence on recovery. Data is scarce, heterogeneous, and confidence in cumulative evidence is very low. Future research should address the limitations highlighted in our review, to allow for more informed recommendations. For now, evidence-based recommendations on whether post-exercise stretching should be applied for the purposes of recovery should be avoided, as the (insufficient) data that is available does not support related claims. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42020222091.