Hohenauer Erich, Taeymans Jan, Baeyens Jean-Pierre, Clarys Peter, Clijsen Ron
Department of Business Economics, Health and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Landquart / Manno, Switzerland; University College Physiotherapy Thim van der Laan, Landquart (GR), Switzerland.
Health Department, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Berne, Switzerland; Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 28;10(9):e0139028. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139028. eCollection 2015.
The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to critically determine the possible effects of different cooling applications, compared to non-cooling, passive post-exercise strategies, on recovery characteristics after various, exhaustive exercise protocols up to 96 hours (hrs). A total of n = 36 articles were processed in this study. To establish the research question, the PICO-model, according to the PRISMA guidelines was used. The Cochrane's risk of bias tool, which was used for the quality assessment, demonstrated a high risk of performance bias and detection bias. Meta-analyses of subjective characteristics, such as delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and objective characteristics like blood plasma markers and blood plasma cytokines, were performed. Pooled data from 27 articles revealed, that cooling and especially cold water immersions affected the symptoms of DOMS significantly, compared to the control conditions after 24 hrs recovery, with a standardized mean difference (Hedges' g) of -0.75 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of -1.20 to -0.30. This effect remained significant after 48 hrs (Hedges' g: -0.73, 95% CI: -1.20 to -0.26) and 96 hrs (Hedges' g: -0.71, 95% CI: -1.10 to -0.33). A significant difference in lowering the symptoms of RPE could only be observed after 24 hrs of recovery, favouring cooling compared to the control conditions (Hedges' g: -0.95, 95% CI: -1.89 to -0.00). There was no evidence, that cooling affects any objective recovery variable in a significant way during a 96 hrs recovery period.
本综述和荟萃分析的目的是严格确定与非冷却、被动运动后策略相比,不同冷却应用对长达96小时的各种力竭运动方案后的恢复特征可能产生的影响。本研究共处理了n = 36篇文章。为确立研究问题,根据PRISMA指南使用了PICO模型。用于质量评估的Cochrane偏倚风险工具显示存在较高的执行偏倚和检测偏倚风险。对主观特征(如延迟性肌肉酸痛[DOMS]和自觉用力程度[RPE]评分)以及客观特征(如血浆标志物和血浆细胞因子)进行了荟萃分析。来自27篇文章的汇总数据显示,与24小时恢复后的对照条件相比,冷却尤其是冷水浸泡对DOMS症状有显著影响,标准化均数差(Hedges' g)为-0.75,95%置信区间(CI)为-1.20至-0.30。在48小时(Hedges' g:-0.73,95% CI:-1.20至-0.26)和96小时(Hedges' g:-0.71,95% CI:-1.10至-0.33)后,这种影响仍然显著。仅在恢复24小时后观察到冷却在降低RPE症状方面存在显著差异,与对照条件相比更有利于冷却(Hedges' g:-0.95,95% CI:-1.89至-0.00)。没有证据表明冷却在96小时的恢复期内会显著影响任何客观恢复变量。