Phototherapy for improvement of performance and exercise recovery : comparison of 3 commercially available devices

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Deutscher übersetzter Titel:Phototherapie zur Verbesserung der Leistungsfähigkeit und Erholungsfähigkeit : Vergleich von drei kommerziell erhältlichen Geräten
Autor:Marchi, Thiago De; Mazzochi Schmitt, Vinicius; Silva Fabro, Carla Danúbia da; Lopes da Silva, Larissa; Sene, Juliane; Tairova, Olga; Salvador, Mirian
Erschienen in:Journal of athletic training
Veröffentlicht:52 (2017), 5, S. 429-438, Lit.
Format: Literatur (SPOLIT)
Publikationstyp: Zeitschriftenartikel
Medienart: Elektronische Ressource (online) Gedruckte Ressource
Sprache:Englisch
ISSN:1062-6050, 0160-8320, 1938-162X
DOI:10.4085/1062-6050-52.2.09
Schlagworte:
Online Zugang:
Erfassungsnummer:PU201705003719
Quelle:BISp

Abstract des Autors

Context:  Recent studies suggest the prophylactic use of low-powered laser/light has ergogenic effects on athletic performance and postactivity recovery. Manufacturers of high-powered lasers/light devices claim that these can produce the same clinical benefits with increased power and decreased irradiation time; however, research with high-powered lasers is lacking.
Objective:  To evaluate the magnitude of observed phototherapeutic effects with 3 commercially available devices.
Design:  Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study.
Setting:  Laboratory.
Patients or Other Participants:  Forty healthy untrained male participants.
Intervention(s):  Participants were randomized into 4 groups: placebo, high-powered continuous laser/light, low-powered continuous laser/light, or low-powered pulsed laser/light (comprising both lasers and light-emitting diodes). A single dose of 180 J or placebo was applied to the quadriceps.
Main Outcome Measure(s):  Maximum voluntary contraction, delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS), and creatine kinase (CK) activity from baseline to 96 hours after the eccentric exercise protocol.
Results:  Maximum voluntary contraction was maintained in the low-powered pulsed laser/light group compared with placebo and high-powered continuous laser/light groups in all time points (P < .05). Low-powered pulsed laser/light demonstrated less DOMS than all groups at all time points (P < .05). High-powered continuous laser/light did not demonstrate any positive effects on maximum voluntary contraction, CK activity, or DOMS compared with any group at any time point. Creatine kinase activity was decreased in low-powered pulsed laser/light compared with placebo (P < .05) and high-powered continuous laser/light (P < .05) at all time points. High-powered continuous laser/light resulted in increased CK activity compared with placebo from 1 to 24 hours (P < .05).
Conclusions:  Low-powered pulsed laser/light demonstrated better results than either low-powered continuous laser/light or high-powered continuous laser/light in all outcome measures when compared with placebo. The increase in CK activity using the high-powered continuous laser/light compared with placebo warrants further research to investigate its effect on other factors related to muscle damage.