Hot‐ and Cold‐Water Immersion Do Not Alter Performance or Perceived Fatigability but Improve Muscle Activation, Cardiac Vagal Modulation, and Cardiorespiratory Recovery After Distinct Running Protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study investigated the effects of cold‐water immersion (11°C, CWI 11° ) and hot‐water immersion (41°C, HWI 41° ) on components of fatigability after distinct high‐intensity endurance running protocols. Participants completed either continuous running at the velocity associated with the respiratory compensation point (vRCP; CONT 100%RCP , n = 12) or intermittent running at 50% above vRCP (HIIT 150%RCP , n = 10). Assessments were performed at baseline, immediately after, and at 2, 4, and 24 h postexercise. These included voluntary and evoked knee‐extensor contractions, countermovement jumps, mood state, cardiac autonomic modulation, and cardiorespiratory and perceptual responses during submaximal brief runs. Compared to placebo and regardless of preceding running protocol, CWI 11° enhanced cardiac vagal modulation at 2 h postexercise (condition × time interaction, p < 0.05), whereas HWI 41° reduced oxygen consumption rate during submaximal brief runs within 24 h postexercise (condition effect, p < 0.05). Furthermore, compared to placebo, HWI 41° increased vastus lateralis activation during maximal voluntary contractions (RMS/M‐wave amp ) 2 and 4 h after the CONT 100%RCP , while CWI 11° increased it at the same time points after the HIIT 150%RCP (condition × time interactions, p < 0.05). The efficacy of CWI 11° and HWI 41° as recovery interventions after running depended on the specific component of fatigability being assessed and the preceding exercise protocol. While CWI 11° increased cardiac vagal modulation and HWI 41° reduced oxygen consumption rate in post‐intervention submaximal brief runs, neither intervention improved knee‐extensor voluntary or involuntary peak force, perceptual responses, or mood disturbance. Both HWI 41° and CWI 11° enhanced muscle activation during maximal voluntary contractions; however, this benefit was observed with HWI 41° after continuous endurance running and with CWI 11° following high‐intensity intermittent running.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".