Clements Julie M, Casa Douglas J, Knight J, McClung Joseph M, Blake Alan S, Meenen Paula M, Gilmer Allison M, Caldwell Kellie A
University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
J Athl Train. 2002 Jun;37(2):146-150.
To assess whether ice-water immersion or cold-water immersion is the more effective treatment for rapidly cooling hyperthermic runners. DESIGN AND SETTING: 17 heat-acclimated highly trained distance runners (age = 28 +/- 2 years, height = 180 +/- 2 cm, weight = 68.5 +/- 2.1 kg, body fat = 11.2 +/- 1.3%, training volume = 89 +/- 10 km/wk) completed a hilly trail run (approximately 19 km and 86 minutes) in the heat (wet-bulb globe temperature = 27 +/- 1 degrees C) at an individually selected "comfortable" pace on 3 occasions 1 week apart. The random, crossover design included (1) distance run, then 12 minutes of ice-water immersion (5.15 +/- 0.20 degrees C), (2) distance run, then 12 minutes of cold-water immersion (14.03 +/- 0.28 degrees C), or (3) distance run, then 12 minutes of mock immersion (no water, air temperature = 28.88 +/- 0.76 degrees C). MEASUREMENTS: Each subject was immersed from the shoulders to the hip joints for 12 minutes in a tub. Three minutes elapsed between the distance run and the start of immersion. Rectal temperature was recorded at the start of immersion, at each minute of immersion, and 3, 6, 10, and 15 minutes postimmersion. No rehydration occurred during any trial. RESULTS: Length of distance run, time to complete distance run, rectal temperature, and percentage of dehydration after distance run were similar (P >.05) among all trials, as was the wet-bulb globe temperature. No differences (P >.05) for cooling rates were found when comparing ice-water immersion, cold-water immersion, and mock immersion at the start of immersion to 4 minutes, 4 to 8 minutes, and the start of immersion to 8 minutes. Ice-water immersion and cold-water immersion cooling rates were similar (P >.05) to each other and greater (P <.05) than mock immersion at 8 to 12 minutes, the start of immersion to 10 minutes, and the start of immersion to every other time point thereafter. Rectal temperatures were similar (P >.05) between ice-water immersion and cold-water immersion at the completion of immersion and 15 minutes postimmersion, but ice-water immersion rectal temperatures were less (P <.05) than cold-water immersion at 6 and 10 minutes postimmersion. CONCLUSIONS: Cooling rates were nearly identical between ice-water immersion and cold-water immersion, while both were 38% more effective in cooling after 12 minutes of immersion than the mock-immersion trial. Given the similarities in cooling rates and rectal temperatures between ice-water immersion and cold-water immersion, either mode of cooling is recommended for treating the hyperthermic individual.
评估冰水浸泡或冷水浸泡对快速降低体温过高的跑步者体温是否更有效。设计与环境：17名经过热适应的训练有素的长跑运动员（年龄 = 28 ± 2岁，身高 = 180 ± 2厘米，体重 = 68.5 ± 2.1千克，体脂 = 11.2 ± 1.3%，训练量 = 89 ± 10公里/周）在炎热环境（湿球黑球温度 = 27 ± 1摄氏度）下，以各自选择的“舒适”配速，每隔1周进行3次山地越野跑（约19公里，86分钟）。随机交叉设计包括：（1）跑完规定距离后，进行12分钟的冰水浸泡（5.15 ± 0.20摄氏度）；（2）跑完规定距离后，进行12分钟的冷水浸泡（14.03 ± 0.28摄氏度）；（3）跑完规定距离后，进行12分钟的模拟浸泡（无水，气温 = 28.88 ± 0.76摄氏度）。测量：将每位受试者从肩部到髋关节浸泡在浴缸中12分钟。跑步结束至开始浸泡间隔3分钟。在浸泡开始时、浸泡的每分钟以及浸泡后3、6、10和15分钟记录直肠温度。任何试验期间均未补液。结果：所有试验中，跑步距离、完成跑步的时间、直肠温度以及跑步后的脱水百分比均相似（P >.05），湿球黑球温度也是如此。在比较浸泡开始至4分钟、4至8分钟以及浸泡开始至8分钟时，冰水浸泡、冷水浸泡和模拟浸泡的降温速率无差异（P >.05）。在8至12分钟、浸泡开始至10分钟以及浸泡开始至此后的每个其他时间点，冰水浸泡和冷水浸泡的降温速率彼此相似（P >.05），且均高于模拟浸泡（P <.05）。浸泡结束时和浸泡后15分钟，冰水浸泡和冷水浸泡后的直肠温度相似（P >.05），但浸泡后6分钟和10分钟时，冰水浸泡后的直肠温度低于冷水浸泡（P <.05）。结论：冰水浸泡和冷水浸泡的降温速率几乎相同，且浸泡12分钟后两者的降温效果均比模拟浸泡试验有效38%。鉴于冰水浸泡和冷水浸泡在降温速率和直肠温度方面相似，推荐任何一种降温方式用于治疗体温过高的个体。
