Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26664273›Full record

ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2015

Effect of Two Types of Active Recovery on Fatigue and Climbing Performance.

Pedro L Valenzuela, Pedro de la Villa, Carmen Ferragut

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Optimizing active recovery strategies for finger flexor fatigue.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024
    Article
  6. Physical performance testing in climbing-A systematic review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2023
    Review
  7. The Load Structure in International Competitive Climbing.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022
    Article
  8. Determinants for success in climbing: A systematic review.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2019
    Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Pedro L ValenzuelaPhysiology, Biology Systems Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Alcalá , Madrid, Spain.
Pedro de la VillaPhysiology, Biology Systems Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Alcalá , Madrid, Spain.
Carmen FerragutSport and Physical Education Area, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Alcalá , Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Performing intra-session recovery is important in rock climbing due to the multiple efforts that climbers are required to make in competitions, as well as repeated climbing trials that they carry out during training sessions. Active recovery has been shown to be a better option than passive recovery. However, the type of active recovery that should be done and the influence of the type and quantity of muscle mass activated are not clear. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of recovering with easy climbing (CR) or walking (WR) on markers of fatigue and climbing performance. For this purpose, 14 subjects participated in this randomly assigned crossover protocol completing three two-minute climbing trials separated by two minutes of active recovery with the assigned method. Seven days later participants carried out the same protocol with the other recovery method. Blood lactate (La(-)), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and heart rate (HR) were analyzed as markers of fatigue and recovery, while meters climbed (MC) and handgrip force (HF) were analyzed for performance. La- values before the last climbing trial (p < 0.05; d = 0.69) and Peak La- values (p < 0.05; d = 0.77) were lower for CR than for WR. Climbers were able to ascend more meters in the set time when following the CR protocol (p < 0.01; d = 0.6), which shows the important role of the active recovery method carried out on climbing performance. There were no differences in HR, HF or RPE between protocols. A more sport-specific recovery protocol, in addition to moving great muscle mass (e.g. lower limbs), seems to enhance recovery and to facilitate lactate removal. For this reason, CR appears to be a more effective active recovery method than WR in sport rock climbing. Key pointsClimbing recovery improved lactate removal in comparison with walking recovery.Subjects were able to climb more meters in a determined time when easy climbing instead of walking during recoveries.Activating both great muscle mass like that of the lower limbs as well as the main fatigue producing muscles (forearms in climbing) seems more effective for recovering than activating just great muscle mass.

Indexed as

active recoveryBlood lactatefatiguehandgrip forceperformancerock climbing

Identifiers

PMID26664273
PMCPMC4657419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.