J. William Myrer is Associate Professor of Physical Education at Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602.
J Athl Train. 1994 Dec;29(4):318-22.
Contrast therapy, although having a long history of use in sports medicine and physical therapy, remains insufficiently researched. We investigated the thermal effects of contrast therapy on intramuscular temperature. We randomly assigned 28 college students to either a control or a contrast group, eight women and six men per group. We shaved and cleansed a 4- x 4-cm area of skin over the right medial calf and inserted a microprobe to a depth of 1 cm below the skin and subcutaneous fat in the center of the gastrocnemius. Each control subject immersed the treatment leg in a hot whirlpool (40.6 degrees C) for 20 minutes. Each contrast subject first immersed the treatment leg in a hot whirlpool (40.6 degrees C) for 4 minutes then into a cold whirlpool (15.6 degrees C) for 1 minute. Contrast subjects repeated this sequence three additional times. We recorded intramuscular temperatures every 30 seconds over the entire treatment time for both groups. The control group had a temperature increase of 2.83 +/- 1.14 degrees C over the 20-minute treatment. The contrast group temperature increased 0.39 +/- 0.46 degrees C from baseline to the end of the treatment. The largest temperature change from the end of one contrast immersion to the end of the next was only 0.15 +/- 0.10 degrees C. None of the differences between the end of one immersion to the end of the next were significant. Conversely, all differences between the same time periods in the control group had significant temperature increases. Apparently contrast therapy, as studied, is incapable of producing any significant physiological effect on the intramuscular tissue temperature 1 cm below the skin and subcutaneous tissue. We recommend that further research be done to examine the effects of longer periods in both the hot and cold environments on the intramuscular temperature of the human leg. Further investigation of intra-articular or peri-articular temperature change produced by contrast therapy should also be undertaken.
对比疗法在运动医学和物理治疗中已有很长的应用历史,但研究仍不够充分。我们研究了对比疗法对肌肉内温度的热效应。我们将 28 名大学生随机分为对照组和对比组,每组 8 名女性和 6 名男性。我们剃光并清洁右小腿内侧的 4×4 厘米皮肤区域,并将微探头插入皮肤和皮下脂肪中心的 1 厘米深处。每个对照组受试者将治疗腿浸入热水涡流(40.6°C)中 20 分钟。每个对比组受试者首先将治疗腿浸入热水涡流(40.6°C)中 4 分钟,然后浸入冷水涡流(15.6°C)中 1 分钟。对比组重复此序列 3 次。我们记录了两组在整个治疗过程中每 30 秒的肌肉内温度。对照组在 20 分钟的治疗过程中体温升高 2.83 ± 1.14°C。对比组的温度从基线到治疗结束时升高了 0.39 ± 0.46°C。从一次对比浸泡结束到下一次浸泡结束的最大温度变化仅为 0.15 ± 0.10°C。从一次浸泡结束到下一次浸泡结束之间的所有差异均无统计学意义。相比之下,对照组在同一时间段内的所有差异均有显著的体温升高。显然,如本研究所示,对比疗法无法对皮肤和皮下组织下 1 厘米处的肌肉组织温度产生任何显著的生理影响。我们建议进一步研究更长时间处于热环境和冷环境对人体腿部肌肉内温度的影响。还应进一步研究对比疗法引起的关节内或关节周围温度变化。