MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Exercise Recovery with Cold and Thermoneutral Water Immersion and Performance in Athletes

2019· article· en· W2955609169 on OpenAlexaff
Hana Marmura, Matthew S. Palmer

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exerciseHeart rateMedicineCrossover studyRating of perceived exertionPerceived exertionPhysical therapyTime trialAnaerobic exerciseVO2 maxPlyometricsPlaceboBlood pressureInternal medicineJump

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cold water immersion (CWI) is commonly used to expedite recovery from strenuous exercise. However, it is unclear whether recovery with CWI confers any added performance or perceptual benefits during subsequent exercise vs. thermoneutral water immersion (TWI). PURPOSE: To investigate the potential for CWI and TWI in recovery from strenuous exercise to improve subsequent performance in athletes. METHODS: Ten varsity athletes (age 22 ± 2 yrs; height 177.9 ± 10.5 cm; weight 70.6 ± 9.6 kg; VO2max 53.9 ± 6.8 ml/kg/min) performed pre-recovery (PRE) and post-recovery (POST) exercise protocols. The 20 min recovery period involved 10 min of either CWI (14.7 ± 0.3 °C), TWI (34.8 ± 0.8 °C) or room air control (CON) (28.7 ± 0.8 °C) in a randomized, crossover design. The exercise protocols required participants to cycle for 20 min at 57 ± 1% VO2max (WARM) and immediately complete a 10 min work-based time trial (TT) at ~75% VO2max in heat (30 ± 0.1°C, 59 ± 0.3% r.h.). This was followed by performance tests of upper and lower body reaction time, maximal countermovement jump height (CMJ), maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of the knee flexors, and questionnaires outlining mood states and belief score. Heart rate (HR) and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded every 1 min during the TTs and in recovery. RESULTS: No differences between groups were observed for any PRE variable. Mean workloads were higher for every min of the POST TT in the CWI trial compared to TWI and CON trials. There was a trend for CWI to minimize the % change in mean TT workload vs. TWI and CON (-1.1 ± 1.9 vs. -4.6 ± 1.4 and -7.2 ± 2.3%, p = 0.11). Mean POST-WARM VO2 did not differ between CWI, TWI or CON trials (2.2 ± 0.2, 2.2 ± 0.2 and 2.2 ± 0.1 L/min). However, mean POST-WARM HR was significantly lower in the CWI trial vs. TWI and CON trials (151 ± 3 vs. 159 ± 3 and 159 ± 4 bpm, p < 0.05). Mean increase in TT RPE was blunted in the CWI trial vs. TWI and CON trials (0 ± 1 vs. 1 ± 1 and 1 ± 1, p < 0.05). Belief score correlated with the change in TT workload in the CWI trial only (R2 = 0.35, p < 0.05). No significant differences in CMJ or MVIC were observed between trials. CONCLUSION: Ten minutes of CWI in recovery from intense exercise in the heat reduced mean HR and RPE during a post-recovery exercise test, which may have contributed to the trend of a higher mean workload in the post-recovery TT vs. TWI or CON.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→