Stretching versus transitory icing: which is the more effective treatment for attenuating muscle fatigue after repeated manual labor?

PURPOSE: Effective recovery from muscle fatigue, especially during rest intervals between periods of high-intensity activity, is important to ensure optimal subsequent performance. Stretching and icing are two types of treatment used for muscle recovery in such situations. However, their effectiveness remains unclear because of a lack of adequate evidence and/or discrepant results of previous studies. We performed a study to elucidate the effects of stretching and icing on muscle fatigue in subjects performing alternating muscle contraction and rest.

METHODS: Sixteen healthy male subjects aged 21-27 years were evaluated. Each subject performed repeated isometric muscle contraction exercises that involved lifting and holding a dumbbell to induce muscle fatigue. Four treatments were performed during the rest periods between isometric muscle contraction: static stretching, ballistic stretching, no stretching, or icing. Electromyography and relative muscle oxygen saturation measurements were performed during the exercises. Muscle fatigue was indirectly estimated by the decline in the median frequency of the electromyographic signal.

RESULTS: Stretching between alternate isometric muscle contraction exercises resulted in a significantly lower median frequency of the electromyographic signal than did no stretching. There was no significant difference in the change in the median frequency between static and ballistic stretching. Conversely, icing between alternate exercises did not decrease the median frequency.

CONCLUSIONS: Stretching, whether static or ballistic, is not beneficial for recovery from muscle fatigue and may actually inhibit recovery. Icing may more effectively induce such recovery and thus may be a better choice between the two treatment techniques.