4. Discussion
DOMS, fatigue, EIMD, muscle damage, pain
EVENT
Power performance measured through the CMJ presented the same recovery pattern in all three groups, which may indicate that recovery might be more dependent on the time frame rather than the recovery modality used. It is important to highlight that none of the three groups reached pretest levels 24 hours following the HIFT training session, irrespective of the recovery modality. The time course of recovery following exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) depends on various factors such as duration and intensity of the proposed exercise, muscle length, and muscle groups involved during the activity, which influences the extent of the initial muscle damage. Even though DOMS cannot be proposed as a direct marker of EIMD, it is considered a common symptom of muscle damage [However, the CONT group showed a greater magnitude of effect 24 h postintervention (ES = 0.51) versus both experimental groups (FR = 0.29, SS = 0.22). FR was shown to acutely worsen fatigue indices (less resistance to fatigue) when the pace was not controlled [Previous research observed an acute deleterious effect of SS on ankle force sense acuity. This may consequently impair motor balance and control, which is critical for the adequate performance of functional activities [Twenty-four hours following testing, the three groups presented an impaired performance on the COD The fact that the proposed HIFT session did not promote a deleterious effect on the ability to change direction and showed a possible improvement in performance in all three groups (CONT = 0.16, FR = 0.48, SS = 0.67) may be explained by a motor-learning effect even though a submaximal and two maximal attempts were conducted aiming to minimize this event [The authors highlight that the protocol proposed by MacDonald et al. [Perceptual measures have been used to monitor training load in different sports settings [DOMS seems to reach its peak 24–72 h postexercise. Considering that HIFT practitioners may perform the activity daily, a full investigation in a 72 h protocol is recommended. Regarding the use of SS, a recent meta-analysis has considered data as scarce, heterogeneous, and not supportive of existing guidelines that reinforce the use of static stretching as a recovery modality, making it difficult to support or contradict the use of SS as a postexercise recovery tool [Preceding research classified HIFT sessions as a training concept derived from the combination of high-intensity interval training and traditional resistance training [The proposed HIFT session primarily consisted of upper body exercises, while the proposed neuromuscular tests were lower body. The recovery process involved several systems, and the fatigue imposed by the training session caused changes in several body structures, including the central nervous system (CNS). It is suggested that central fatigue promotes an inability of the CNS to optimally conduct the skeletal and muscular system, which highlights a more global approach to the recovery process [The present study had some limitations. During HIFT sessions, participants were instructed to perform “as fast as possible” or “as many as possible”, and resting periods were not defined, which may have exposed participants to different amounts and variations in the physiological stimulus. However, the lack of rigorous control of training variables guarantees greater ecological validity and maintains the main characteristics of this type of training. Second, participants were not highly familiarized with the foam rolling technique, which may have imposed greater effort and discomfort since the pain threshold might be lower in certain individuals causing the pressure of foam rolling to be highly painful. Lastly, the sample was composed only of male participants with extensive HIFT experience, which prevents the extrapolation of results for novice and female individuals. 