Cold Water Immersion Does Not Enhance Recovery and Performance After High‐Intensity Interval Dorsiflexion Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cold-water immersion (CWI) has become a widely adopted method for post-exercise recovery. However, its effectiveness in restoring neuromuscular function remains inconclusive. This study examined the impact of CWI on recovery following high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE). Twelve young, recreationally active individuals (10 males, 2 females) participated in a randomized crossover study. Each session included six sets of 30-s all-out isokinetic concentric contractions of the ankle dorsiflexor and plantar flexor muscles, followed by 10 min of room temperature rest (RT) or CWI at 10°C. Neuromuscular function and intramuscular temperature were evaluated periodically over 24 h, as well as next-day fatigue resistance of the dorsiflexors. In both conditions, maximal voluntary contraction torque remained impaired for up to 3 h without significant changes in voluntary activation (p > 0.05). Electrically stimulated torque showed no difference in the fatigue-induced decline or recovery of 10 Hz torque, which also remained impaired for up to 3 h. However, 50 Hz torque recovered within 1 h following RT, whereas it remained slightly reduced for up to 3 h following CWI. The 10:50 Hz torque ratio showed immediate recovery with CWI, whereas RT recovery was delayed for up to 1 h. Notably, the ratio was significantly lower with RT at 0-, 0.5-, and 1-h post-intervention. Despite these differences, HIIE performance during a repeat bout conducted 24 h later remained similar. In conclusion, 10 min of CWI at 10°C does not enhance post-exercise recovery or next-day exercise performance following HIIE.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".