Low-Level Laser Therapy and Cryotherapy as Interventions for Muscle Recovery Following Strenuous Exercise
Faculty Mentor
Garth Babcock
Presentation Type
Poster
Start Date
5-8-2024 11:15 AM
End Date
5-8-2024 1:00 PM
Location
PUB NCR
Primary Discipline of Presentation
Wellness & Movement Sciences
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cryotherapy is one of the most commonly used modalities for not only injuries but also postexercise recovery even though there is research challenging the effectiveness of its use. This modality decreases tissue metabolic rate, promotes vasoconstriction, decreases vascular permeability and can aid in the decrease of edema formation. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) uses light to treat various pathologies and musculoskeletal injuries such as healing skin wounds and regeneration of tendons, muscle and nerve tissues and it also has positive effects on pain and inflammation. The primary objective of this study is to compare efficacy of LLLT and cryotherapy on muscle recovery after strenuous exercise and evaluate if laser therapy is an alternate or more beneficial modality than cryotherapy for post-exercise muscle soreness and recovery. DESIGN: Crossover randomized control trial. METHODS: Male athletes (18-24) who sustained muscle soreness or pain after strenuous exercises were randomized in a LLLT or cryotherapy group using cold tubs. All patients were engaged in similar workouts, during different times throughout the day. Hamstring and quadriceps muscles were treated with LLLT or cold tubs after exercise. A recovery-stress questionnaire was filled out by the participants at the beginning of the week on Monday and at the end of the week on Friday. A visual analog scale for muscle soreness was completed before treatment and 24 hours after treatments. This all occurred over a 4-week time period. RESULTS: 11 athletes began the treatments and started the surveys, and 10 (5 per group) completed the entirety of the study. The LLLT had on average a difference of 0 ± 0.25. Cryotherapy treatment had on average a difference of -0.22 ± 0.94. The offweek where no treatment took place, had on average a difference of 0.44 ± 2.27. The p-value for comparison of treatment groups was 0.485 where a p-value of < 0.05 is significant. CONCLUSIONS: LLLT as used in this study was not more effective than cryotherapy on the relief of pain and muscle soreness as there was no significant difference shown between the two treatments. Although there is current evidence that supports that using LLLT can decrease pain and inflammation, additional trials with larger sample sizes and a more concrete design should be conducted to determine if it may be a more effective modality than cryotherapy.
Recommended Citation
Thornton, Leya; Hunt, Arianna; and Cass, Thomas, "Low-Level Laser Therapy and Cryotherapy as Interventions for Muscle Recovery Following Strenuous Exercise" (2024). 2024 Symposium. 23.
https://dc.ewu.edu/srcw_2024/ps_2024/p2_2024/23
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
Low-Level Laser Therapy and Cryotherapy as Interventions for Muscle Recovery Following Strenuous Exercise
PUB NCR
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cryotherapy is one of the most commonly used modalities for not only injuries but also postexercise recovery even though there is research challenging the effectiveness of its use. This modality decreases tissue metabolic rate, promotes vasoconstriction, decreases vascular permeability and can aid in the decrease of edema formation. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) uses light to treat various pathologies and musculoskeletal injuries such as healing skin wounds and regeneration of tendons, muscle and nerve tissues and it also has positive effects on pain and inflammation. The primary objective of this study is to compare efficacy of LLLT and cryotherapy on muscle recovery after strenuous exercise and evaluate if laser therapy is an alternate or more beneficial modality than cryotherapy for post-exercise muscle soreness and recovery. DESIGN: Crossover randomized control trial. METHODS: Male athletes (18-24) who sustained muscle soreness or pain after strenuous exercises were randomized in a LLLT or cryotherapy group using cold tubs. All patients were engaged in similar workouts, during different times throughout the day. Hamstring and quadriceps muscles were treated with LLLT or cold tubs after exercise. A recovery-stress questionnaire was filled out by the participants at the beginning of the week on Monday and at the end of the week on Friday. A visual analog scale for muscle soreness was completed before treatment and 24 hours after treatments. This all occurred over a 4-week time period. RESULTS: 11 athletes began the treatments and started the surveys, and 10 (5 per group) completed the entirety of the study. The LLLT had on average a difference of 0 ± 0.25. Cryotherapy treatment had on average a difference of -0.22 ± 0.94. The offweek where no treatment took place, had on average a difference of 0.44 ± 2.27. The p-value for comparison of treatment groups was 0.485 where a p-value of < 0.05 is significant. CONCLUSIONS: LLLT as used in this study was not more effective than cryotherapy on the relief of pain and muscle soreness as there was no significant difference shown between the two treatments. Although there is current evidence that supports that using LLLT can decrease pain and inflammation, additional trials with larger sample sizes and a more concrete design should be conducted to determine if it may be a more effective modality than cryotherapy.
