目的：探討震動按摩槍、福洛斯功能性加壓帶（Flossband）對於誘發肌肉疲勞後肌力恢復及本體感覺是否有效益。方法：以14名健康一般大學生為研究對象，以60次/秒進行反覆下蹲跳誘發肌肉疲勞。分別於誘發疲勞前、後及恢復處理介入後，以60度/秒等速肌力儀進行股四頭肌肌力測試及膝關節本體感覺測試。三種恢復處理介入方法分別為，以震動按摩槍30Hz連續施作10分鐘；Flossband纏繞後加上徒手按摩，共施作3次一次3分20秒，纏繞加施作總時間為10分鐘及靜置休息10分鐘。以重複量數變異數分析（repeated measured ANOVA）考驗同一時間內三種不同恢復方式組別在疲勞前和疲勞後的表現差異，以確保三組間疲勞前和疲勞後的表現是否有同質；每一種恢復方式以重複量數變異數分析考驗疲勞前及疲勞後的比較差異，當達到顯著水準時，再以多重比較分析檢定法進行事後分析比較。所有統計顯著水準訂為α =.05；利用恢復後數值減掉疲勞後數值再除以恢復後數值，算出恢復進步率；利用t檢定分析兩組間的恢復效果，以恢復進步率來比較股四頭肌肌力及膝關節本體感覺是否達顯著。結果：在本體感覺項目中只有Flossband手法有顯著恢復效果；在肌肉力量上震動按摩槍及Flossband的介入恢復程度皆有顯著影響，在介入後，震動按摩槍組最大力量及平均力量（169.1 ± 53.6 N-M；147.2 ± 47.0 N-M ），恢復進步率分別約12%及15%；Flossband組最大力量及平均力量（157.8 ±56.6 N-M；138.6 ±47.2 N-M），恢復進步率分別約9%及10%，兩者恢復率並沒有達顯著差異。結論：運動疲勞後震動按摩槍及Flossband在最大力量及平均力量皆可以達到有效的恢復，兩者對於力量表現上的恢復相同；在本體感覺只有Flossband有達到顯著恢復效果。
Objective: To investigate whether vibration massage gun and Flossband are effective in restoring muscle strength and proprioception after induced muscle fatigue. Methods: 14 healthy college students were selected as the research subjects. The muscle fatigue was induced by repeated squatting and jumping 60 times per second. Quadriceps femoris muscle strength and knee-joint proprioception were measured by 60 degrees/second isokinetic inotinometer after warm up and after induct fatigue and recovery treatment. The three intervention methods of recovery treatment were as follows: a vibrating massage gun was applied continuously for 10 minutes at 30Hz; After Flossband winding and massage is applied for 3 times in total, 3 minutes and 20 seconds each time. The total time of winding and massage is 10 minutes. And rest for 10 minutes. Repeated ANOVA was used to test the difference of the performance of the three groups with different recovery methods before and after fatigue at the same time, to ensure the homogeneity of the performance between the three groups before and after fatigue. For each recovery method, the difference of fatigue ratio before and after fatigue was tested by ANOVA. When it reached the significant level, the post-recovery analysis was compared by multiple comparative analysis verification method. All statistical significance levels were set at α =.05; Using the value after recovery minus the value after fatigue and then dividing by the value after recovery, the recovery progress rate is calculated. T-test was used to analyze the recovery effect between the two groups, and the recovery improvement rate was used to compare whether the quadriceps muscle strength and knee proprioception were significant. Results: In the proprioception project, only Flossband had significant recovery effect; In terms of muscle strength, the recovery degree of vibration gun and Flossband intervention were significantly affected. After intervention, the maximum strength and average strength of the vibration gun group were (169.1±53.6 N-M; 147.2±47.0 N-M), the recovery improvement rate was respectively about 12% and 15%, than the maximum strength and average strength of Flossband group (157.8±56.6 N-M; 138.6±47.2 N-M), the recovery rate was respectively about 9% and 10%, respectively, and there was no significant difference between the two. Conclusion: Both the vibration gun and Flossband can effectively recover maximum strength and average strength after exercise fatigue, and both have the same effect on strength performance. In the sense of proprioception, only Flossband had a significant recovery effect.
