Branco
Improved subjective recovery with hyperbaric oxygen but no influence on markers of cellular damage or hormone levels
Clinical bottom line:
| 1.Hyperbaric oxygen was not associated with any objective differences in serum hormones or markers of cellular damage. ** 2. There were improvements in the subjective reporting of the degree of recovery following hyperbaric oxygen exposures. |
- Citation/s:
1. Branco BU, Fukuda DH, Andreato LV, da Silva Santos JF, Esteves JV, Franchini E. The effects of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on post-training recovery in jiu-jitsu athletes PloS one 2016;11(3:e0150517
Lead author's name and email: BH Branco brauliomagnani@live.com
- Three-part Clinical Question: For Jui-Jitsu athletes, does the administration of hyperbaric oxygen following training sessions compared to rest, result in any effect on hormone concentrations or biochemical markers of cellular damage?
- Search Terms: Exercise, recovery, martial arts
- The Study: Non-blinded randomised controlled trial with intention-to-treat.
The Study Patients: Adult male Jui-Jitsu athletes in regular training three times each week and without a current injury
- Control group (N = 11; 11 analysed): Passive recovery for 2 hours after two separate training sessions.
- Experimental group (N = 11; 11 analysed): Breathing 100% oxygen at 2.4 ATA for one hour and 40 minutes after two separate training sessions, followed by a further 1 hour and 40 minute recovery period.
- The Evidence:
| Measure (means) | Control Group | HBOT Group | Difference | 95% CI | ||
| ^ | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ^ | ^ |
| Serum Creatine Kinase (units/L) at 2 hrs | 511 | 163 | 502 | 322 | 9 | -218 to 236 |
| Serum Creatine Kinase (units/L) at 24 hrs | 562 | 335 | 489 | 281 | 73 | -202 to 348 |
| Serum cortisol (ng/ml) at 2 hours | 8.1 | 1.8 | 6.5 | 15.6 | 1.60 | -8.3 to 11.5 |
| Measure (medians) | Time to outcome/s | Control group | HBOT group | P-value |
| Ratings of Perceived Recovery (0 - 10 (worst)) | 2 hours | 6 (5 - 7) | 8 (6 - 9) | < 0.05 |
| Ratings of Perceived Recovery (0 - 10 (worst)) | 24 hours | 9 (8 - 6) | 10 (9 - 10) | <0.05 |
- Comments:
1. Crossover study with no attempt to blind participants or experimenters.
2. Thorough statistical approach with ANOVA and post-hoc Bonferroni correction. The meaning if the difference between groups used to calculate sample size is not clear.
3. Authors emphasise the biochemical results over the subjective outcomes.
4. The improvement in subjective recovery scores at 24 hours seems very modest and may be of little practical importance.
5. Lack of blinding may have influenced the subjective outcome.
- Appraised by: Michael Bennett m.bennett@unsw.edu.au ; Monday, 9 April 2018
- Kill or Update By: April 2021
