Effects of cold water immersion on lower extremity joint biomechanics during running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the influence of cryotherapy on lower extremity running biomechanics. Twenty-six healthy male volunteers were randomised into two intervention groups: cold water (cold water at ~11°C) or tepid water (tepid water at ~26°C). They were required to run at 4.0 ± 0.2 m · s(-1) before and after they underwent water immersion for 20 min. Differences between pre- and post-intervention were used to compare the influence of water intervention during running. Peak joint angles, peak joint moments, peak ground reaction forces (GRF) and contact time (CT) were calculated using three-dimensional gait analysis. Independent t-tests were applied with a significant alpha level set at 0.05. Decreased peak propulsive and vertical GRF, decreased plantarflexion moments, increased hip flexion angle and longer CT were observed following cold water immersion. Although cold water immersion (cryotherapy) affected the running movement, none of the alterations have been related to running biomechanical patterns associated with injuries. Therefore, our results indicated that cold water immersion appears safe prior to running activities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".