Effectiveness of the Swisswingʼ Biomechanical Stimulation Device for Recovery After Acute Exercise in Professional Male Soccer Players

Abstract

The Swisswingʼ Biomechanical Stimulation Device has been previously used to treat muscle soreness. It is a form of vibration therapy that is beneficial in increasing circulation to treated muscles. Purpose: To determine the effectiveness of the Swisswingʼ Biomechanical Stimulation device for decreasing biochemical markers of muscle damage and inflammation and muscle pain after acute exercise in professional male soccer players. Methods: Seventeen male professional soccer players, aged 20.9 + or - 2.4 years participated in a two-week study to determine the effects of receiving treatment with the Swisswingʼ Biomechanical Stimulation Device. The players were randomly assigned to groups A, B, C, or D to determine the order in which they would receive treatment. During the first week, half of the group received a 4-minute warm-up treatment prior to practice and a 32-minute treatment immediately following soccer practice for five consecutive days. The following week, those who received treatment served as a control and those in the control group received treatment. Creatine kinase (CK) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were measured prior to practice daily, except on day 1 when levels were also measured immediately following practice. Lactic acid (LA) and perceived pain were measured pre- and post-practice as well as post-treatment. Results: There was no significant difference between treatment and control groups for LA, CK, and CRP. LA increased from pre- to post-workout and then declined post-treatment for both groups. Daily LA accumulation was also greatest on day 1 for both groups. CK levels increased above baseline until day 4 and then spiked again on day 5 for both groups. CRP increased steadily for the control group, while the treatment group experienced a decline on day 4. However, these differences were not significant. Post-treatment perceived pain was significantly lower for the treatment group (1.4) versus control (2.9). This difference was significant across the five days (p=.036) and specificall

    Similar works