Effects of Water Immersion Methods on Postexercise Recovery of Physical and Mental Performance

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of three water immersion interventions performed after active recovery compared to active recovery only on physical and mental performance measures and physiological responses. The subjects were physically active men (age 20-35 years, mean ± SD 26 ± 3.7 years). All participants performed a short-term exercise protocol, including maximal jumps and sprinting. Four different recovery methods (10 minutes) were used in random order: cold water immersion (CWI, 10 ᵒC), thermoneutral water immersion (TWI, 24 ᵒC), contrast water therapy (CWT, alternately 10 ᵒC and 38 ᵒC). All of these methods were performed after an active recovery (10 minutes bicycle ergometer; heart rate 120-140 bpm, 60-73 % from age-calculated maximum heart rate), and the fourth method was active recovery (ACT) only. Within 96 hours after exercise bouts, recovery was assessed via a 30 m maximal sprint test, maximal countermovement jump (CMJ), self-perceived muscle soreness and relaxation questionnaires, blood lactate, creatine kinase, testosterone, cortisol and catecholamine levels. The selfperceived feeling of relaxation after 60 minutes recovery was better (p < 0.05) after CWI and CWT than ACT and TWI. Statistically significant differences were not observed between the recovery methods in any other marker. In the 30 m sprint test, however, slower running time was found in ACT (p < 0.001) and CWT (p = 0.005), and reduced CMJ results (p < 0.05) were found in ACT when the results were compared to baseline values. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that CWI and CWT improve the acute feeling of relaxation that can play a positive role in athletes' performance and well-being.

Cold-water immersion combined with active recovery is equally as effective as active recovery during 10 weeks of high-intensity combined strength and endurance training in men

“…The observed increases in strength and power were expected while the lack of significant improvement in running time may indicate that the present training combined with AR or CWI is not effective in improving running capacity over relatively short distances on a flat surface. While CWI may have reduced or delayed muscle soreness or increased the feeling of relaxation [1,6] and AR may have aided in clearing metabolic waste [3], AR and CWI did not cause differences in adaptations to the present training.…”

“…CWI can be performed in water or a combination of water and ice with water temperatures ranging from 5° to 15°C and immersion time ranges from a few minutes to over an hour [5]. Several studies have reported decreases in skin, muscle, and core temperature with CWI that may aid recovery by reducing and/or delaying inflammation and the onset of muscle soreness [6], and increasing the feeling of relaxation [1]. In contrast, CWI may attenuate improvements in muscle mass and strength while blunting related muscle signaling processes for up to two days after exercise [4].…”

Water immersion methods do not alter muscle damage and inflammation biomarkers after high-intensity sprinting and jumping exercise

“…The recovery protocol was designed to match typical recovery routines used by athletes and the purpose was to investigate the possibility of added benefit from water immersion methods compared to standard (active) recovery routines frequently used by athletes. A schematic representation of the protocol has been published elsewhere (Ahokas et al 2019). Briefly, participants were randomly allocated to active recovery only (ACT), or active recovery followed by cold-water immersion (CWI), contrast water therapy (CWT) or thermoneutral water immersion (TWI) on each test day.…”

“…The performance tests involved a single 30 m maximal sprint, maximum bilateral isometric leg press and countermovement jump. The performance test protocol has been reported elsewhere and there were no differences in performance test results following different immersions (Ahokas et al 2019). Furthermore, creatine kinase (CK) and cortisol (COR) responses in relation to self-reported muscle soreness have been reported elsewhere (Ahokas et al 2019), and are presented here in a posteriori reliability analyses.…”

“…Therefore, we a posteriori investigated the variability of the exercise-induced muscle damage, inflammatory, and leukocyte responses by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for biomarker concentrations and leukocyte counts at PRE, POST5 and the response magnitude between the two timepoints (fold change). Creatine kinase (CK) and cortisol (COR) responses to exercise, previously reported in Ahokas et al (2019), were also included in the a posteriori analysis. The ICC model selected was a two-way, mixed-effects model with absolute agreement (Koo and Li 2016).…”