Comparative Effects of Vibration and Mechanical Massage on Exercise-Induced Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness in Sedentary Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial
| Author | Saixi Song | en |
| Author | Wichai Eungpinichpong | en |
| Orcid | Saixi Song [0009-0004-1447-6672] | en |
| Orcid | Wichai Eungpinichpong [0000-0001-7014-1448] | en |
| Issued Date | 2025-09-30 | en |
| Abstract | Background: Delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) significantly impairs functional capacity and exercise tolerance in sedentary college students. Although massage interventions show promise in promoting recovery from DOMS, comparative evidence between mechanical and vibration modalities remains limited. Objectives: To compare the efficacy of mechanical massage (leg massager) versus vibration massage (massage gun) in promoting acute recovery from exercise-induced DOMS in the lower-limb muscles of collegiate athletes. Methods: This single-blind (assessor-blinded) randomised controlled trial enrolled 34 sedentary college students (n = 17 per group), based on an a priori power analysis (G*Power 3.1.9.7; f = 0.25, α = 0.05, power = 0.80), aged 18 - 23 years with a BMI of 18 - 24 kg/m², who underwent exercise-induced gastrocnemius DOMS modelling. Participants were randomly allocated (using a random number table stratified by baseline VAS scores by an independent researcher) to receive either mechanical massage (leg massager, 50 - 80 mmHg, five minutes per limb) or vibration massage (massage gun, 50 Hz, five minutes per limb) at 24 hours post-exercise. The pre-registered primary outcome was pain intensity, measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS) at 24 hours post-intervention. Secondary outcome measures included pain intensity (VAS), pressure pain threshold (PPT), muscle strength (hand-held dynamometer, HHD), range of motion (ROM), and calf circumference, assessed at baseline, immediately post-exercise, and at 24, 48, and 72 hours post-exercise. Data were analysed using a two-factor repeated measures ANOVA (time × group). Results: Both groups showed significant time-dependent improvements across all outcomes (P < 0.05). VAS decreased from 24 to 72 hours (mechanical: 4.24 ± 2.04 to 1.49 ± 1.61; vibration: 3.98 ± 2.06 to 0.57 ± 0.68; F = 30.819, P < 0.001), with no between-group difference (F = 0.598, P = 0.445); the group × time interaction showed a trend toward significance (F = 2.267, P = 0.086). At the prespecified primary endpoint (VAS at T2, 24 hours post-intervention), the between-group mean difference was 0.26 points (95% CI: −1.12 to 1.64; Cohen’s d = 0.13), indicating negligible between-group separation. The time effect was large (partial η² = 0.491). At 72 hours, the between-group difference was 0.92 points (95% CI: 0.09 to 1.75; Cohen’s d = 0.74), which did not exceed the MCID of 1.5 - 2.0 points for acute musculoskeletal pain. PPT, muscle strength, ROM, and calf circumference demonstrated comparable recovery patterns between groups (all P > 0.05). No adverse events occurred. Conclusions: Both mechanical and vibration massage interventions were associated with similar patterns of acute recovery from DOMS, with no statistically or clinically meaningful between-group differences observed in any outcome measure. Because neither modality demonstrated superiority and the absence of a no-treatment control group precludes definitive attribution of improvements to the interventions, these findings support the feasibility and tolerability of both devices as non-pharmacological options for sedentary young adults, pending confirmation in adequately controlled trials. | en |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.5812/asjsm-169855 | en |
| URI | https://brieflands.com/journals/asjsm/articles/169855 | en |
| Keyword | Delayed-onset muscle soreness | en |
| Keyword | mechanical massage | en |
| Keyword | vibration massage | en |
| Keyword | sedentary college students | en |
| Keyword | muscle recovery | en |
| Publisher | Brieflands | en |
| Title | Comparative Effects of Vibration and Mechanical Massage on Exercise-Induced Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness in Sedentary Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial | en |
| Type | Research Article | en |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
- Name:
- asjsm-16-3-169855-publish-pdf.pdf
- Size:
- 494.43 KB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description:
- Article/s PDF