Postexercise cold-water immersion improves intermittent high-intensity exercise performance in normothermia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A brief cold water immersion between 2 continuous high-intensity exercise bouts improves the performance of the latter compared with passive recovery in the heat. We investigated if this effect is apparent in normothermic conditions (∼19 °C), employing an intermittent high-intensity exercise designed to reflect the work performed at the high-intensity domain in team sports. Fifteen young active men completed 2 exhaustive cycling protocols (Ex1 and Ex2: 12 min at 85% ventilatory threshold (VT) and then an intermittent exercise alternating 30-s at 40% peak power (P peak ) and 30 s at 90% P peak to exhaustion) separated by 15 min of (i) passive rest, (ii) 5-min cold-water immersion at 8 °C, and (iii) 10-min cold-water immersion at 8 °C. Core temperature, heart rate, rates of perceived exertion, and oxygen uptake kinetics were not different during Ex1 among conditions. Time to failure during the intermittent exercise was significantly (P < 0.05) longer during Ex2 following the 5- and 10-min cold-water immersions (7.2 ± 3.5 min and 7.3 ± 3.3 min, respectively) compared with passive rest (5.8 ± 3.1 min). Core temperature, heart rate, and rates of perceived exertion were significantly (P < 0.05) lower during most periods of Ex2 after both cold-water immersions compared with passive rest. The time constant of phase II oxygen uptake response during the 85% VT bout of Ex2 was not different among the 3 conditions. A postexercise, 5- to 10-min cold-water immersion increases subsequent intermittent high-intensity exercise compared with passive rest in normothermia due, at least in part, to reductions in core temperature, circulatory strain, and effort perception.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".