Immediate Effect of Local Vibration Therapy for Sport-induced Fatigue Based on Traditional Chinese Medicine’s Holistic Theory

Figures & data

Figure 1 (A) Governing meridian. (B) Foot-bladder meridian. (C) Hand-triple yin meridian.

Notes: Figure 1A–C illustrate the Traditional Chinese Medicine’s meridians that were adopted to guide the local vibration therapies during our intervention.

Figure 2 (A) Multidimensional Vibration Meridian Instrument. (B) Multi-dimensional Transacupoint Vibration Instrument.

Note: Figure 2A and B show the different instruments that were used for vibration therapy during the intervention.

Figure 3 Fly-bird Type.

Note: The body position for the stimulation known as the fly-bird type.

Figure 4 The Two-point Discrimination Threshold Gauge.

Notes: Figure 4 illustrates the Two-point Discrimination Threshold Gauge that was used to measure the accuracy of the pain and fatigue location. In the figure, “A” and “B” were used to measure and obtain pain and fatigue threshold value, and “C” was applied to test and confirm that the threshold was not participant’s subjective feeling.

Table 1 Mixed Linear Model Test Results of sEMG

	Molecular df	Denominator df	F	p-value
Control Group
Intercept	1	7.877	52.14	0.000
Time	15	112.015	1.137	0.333
Group	1	110.133	0.579	0.449
Intervention Group
Intercept	1	5.692	113.471	0.000
Time	15	118.953	1.883	0.031
Group	1	118.158	8.630	0.004

Notes: Table 1 shows the results of our mixed linear model test of the pre- and post-sEMG data; As shown, the intervention group had a significant change in sEMG measure as comparing the pre- and post-data (p<0.05), whereas the change was not significantly detected in the control group (p>0.05).

Table 2 Intervention Group Mixed Linear Model Test Results of Two-point Discrimination Threshold

	Molecular df	Denominator df	F	p-value
Intercept	1	11.575	266.038	0.000
Time	5	22.806	1.638	0.190
Group	1	17.110	7.112	0.016

Notes: Table 2 demonstrates the results from our two-point discrimination analysis. It shows that time effect is not significant (p>0.05), whereas the grouping effect is significant (p<0.05); These results revealed the significant differences between the pre- and postintervention in the intervention group.