Effect Of Training In A Novel Compression Garment On Anaerobic Performance In Male Collegiate Athletes

A novel, full-body compression garment (CG) is purported to augment axial load and enhance performance during acute bouts of anaerobic exercise. However, the effects of chronic full-body CG use during training on lower body anaerobic performance is unknown. PURPOSE: Thus, the purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that donning CG throughout a training program would improve lower body anaerobic performance greater than a control group. METHODS: Male collegiate soccer athletes were assigned to a control (CT, n = 10, age = 19.8 ± 1.2 yrs, ht = 177.8 ± 7.8 cm, wt = 72.2 ± 6.7 kg) or experimental (CG, n = 10, age = 20.1 ± 1.2 yrs, ht = 178.9 ± 5.2 cm, wt = 78.7 ± 6.1 kg) group that wore CG during a five-week training program (i.e., tempo runs, sprints, and/or resistance training five days weekly). To quantify anaerobic performance as power (Watts, W), each subject completed a maximal, 30-second cycling bout against 7.5% of body weight via the Wingate Anaerobic Bike Test (WAnT) prior to (T1) and after (T2) the training program. Relative peak power (RPP, W/kg), relative mean power (RMP, W/kg), and fatigue index (FI, %) were measured during the WAnT. 2 x 2 repeated measures analyses of variance examined the influence of TIME and GROUP on RPP, RMP, and FI. An alpha of .05 determined statistical significance. RESULTS: For RPP, a non-significant interaction was identified (F1,18 = 1.502, p = 0.236), as well as non-significant main effects for TIME (F1,18 = 0.519, p = 0.480, T1 11.41 ± 1.44 = T2 11.19 ± 1.23 W/kg) and GROUP (F1,18 = 4.294, p = 0.053, CT 10.81 ± 0.11 = CG 11.79 ± 0.43 W/kg). For RMP, a non-significant interaction was identified (F1,18 = 0.015, p = 0.903), as well as non-significant main effects for TIME (F1,18 = 0.407, p = 0.532, T1 4.74 ± 1.35 = T2 4.45 ± 1.27 W/kg) and GROUP (F1,18 = 0.000, p = 0.985, CT 4.61 ± 0.21 = CG 4.62 ± 0.14 W/kg). For FI, a non-significant interaction was identified (F1,18 = 0.531, p = 0.476), as well as non-significant main effects for TIME (F1,18 = 0.578, p = 0.457, T1 57.84 ± 13.85 = T2 49.26 ± 52.06 %) and GROUP (F1,18 = 1.006, p = 0.329, CT 47.09 ± 11.88 = CG 60.01 ± 0.26 %). CONCLUSION: There were no anaerobic performance differences between CT or CG following training. Thus, training with this novel CG does not appear to alter power adaptations. Future researchers should examine if results are similar following longer training exposures.