Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Runners seek health benefits and performance improvement. However, fatigue might be considered a limiting factor. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) has been investigated to improve performance and reduce fatigue in athletes. While some studies showing that tDCS may improve a variety of physical measures, other studies failed to show any benefit.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the acute effects of tDCS on central and peripheral fatigue compared to a sham intervention in recreational runners.
METHODS: This is a triple-blind, controlled, crossover study of 30 recreational runners who were randomized to receive one of the two interventions, anodal or sham tDCS, after the fatigue protocol. The interventions were applied to the quadriceps muscle hotspot for 20 min. Peak torque, motor-evoked potential, and perceived exertion rate were assessed before and after the interventions, and blood lactate level was assessed before, during, and after the interventions. A generalized estimated equation was used to analyze the peak torque, motor-evoked potential, and blood lactate data, and the Wilcoxon test was used for perceived exertion rate data.
RESULTS: Our findings showed no difference between anodal tDCS and sham tDCS on peak torque, motor-evoked potential, blood lactate, and perceived exertion rate.
CONCLUSIONS: The tDCS protocol was not effective in improving performance and reducing fatigue compared to a sham control intervention.
UNASSIGNED: RBR-8zpnxz.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the acute effects of tDCS on central and peripheral fatigue compared to a sham intervention in recreational runners.
METHODS: This is a triple-blind, controlled, crossover study of 30 recreational runners who were randomized to receive one of the two interventions, anodal or sham tDCS, after the fatigue protocol. The interventions were applied to the quadriceps muscle hotspot for 20 min. Peak torque, motor-evoked potential, and perceived exertion rate were assessed before and after the interventions, and blood lactate level was assessed before, during, and after the interventions. A generalized estimated equation was used to analyze the peak torque, motor-evoked potential, and blood lactate data, and the Wilcoxon test was used for perceived exertion rate data.
RESULTS: Our findings showed no difference between anodal tDCS and sham tDCS on peak torque, motor-evoked potential, blood lactate, and perceived exertion rate.
CONCLUSIONS: The tDCS protocol was not effective in improving performance and reducing fatigue compared to a sham control intervention.
UNASSIGNED: RBR-8zpnxz.
摘要：
背景：跑步者寻求健康益处和表现改善。然而,疲劳可能被认为是一个限制因素。已经研究了经颅直流电刺激（tDCS）以改善运动员的表现并减少疲劳。虽然一些研究表明tDCS可以改善各种物理措施，其他研究未能显示任何益处。
目的：评估tDCS与休闲跑步者假干预相比对中枢和外周疲劳的急性影响。
方法：这是一个三盲，控制,对30名被随机分配接受两种干预措施之一的休闲跑步者进行的交叉研究，阳极或假tDCS，在疲劳方案之后。将干预措施应用于股四头肌热点20分钟。峰值扭矩,运动诱发电位,在干预前后评估感知的劳累率，之前评估了血乳酸水平，during,在干预之后。使用广义估计方程来分析峰值扭矩，运动诱发电位,和血乳酸数据，Wilcoxon检验用于感知用力率数据。
结果：我们的研究结果表明，在峰值扭矩上，阳极tDCS和假tDCS之间没有差异，运动诱发电位,血乳酸，和感知的劳累率。
结论：与假对照干预相比，tDCS方案在改善表现和减少疲劳方面无效。
■RBR-8zpnxz。
目的：评估tDCS与休闲跑步者假干预相比对中枢和外周疲劳的急性影响。
方法：这是一个三盲，控制,对30名被随机分配接受两种干预措施之一的休闲跑步者进行的交叉研究，阳极或假tDCS，在疲劳方案之后。将干预措施应用于股四头肌热点20分钟。峰值扭矩,运动诱发电位,在干预前后评估感知的劳累率，之前评估了血乳酸水平，during,在干预之后。使用广义估计方程来分析峰值扭矩，运动诱发电位,和血乳酸数据，Wilcoxon检验用于感知用力率数据。
结果：我们的研究结果表明，在峰值扭矩上，阳极tDCS和假tDCS之间没有差异，运动诱发电位,血乳酸，和感知的劳累率。
结论：与假对照干预相比，tDCS方案在改善表现和减少疲劳方面无效。
■RBR-8zpnxz。
