Department of Life Sciences, Whitelands College, Roehampton University, London, United Kingdom.
BUPA, London, United Kingdom.
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Mar;32(3):764-771. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002314.
Anderson, D, Nunn, J, and Tyler, CJ. Effect of cold (14° C) vs. ice (5° C) water immersion on recovery from intermittent running exercise. J Strength Cond Res 32(3): 764-771, 2018-The purpose was to compare 14° C (CWI14° C) and 5° C (CWI5° C) cold water immersion after intermittent running. On 3 occasions, 9 male team-sport players undertook 12 minutes of CWI14° C, CWI5° C, or nonimmersed seated recovery (CON) after 45 minutes of intermittent running exercise. Maximal cycling performance and markers of recovery were measured before and in the 0-72 hours after exercise. Peak power output (PPO) was immediately reduced after all interventions (d = 1.8). CWI5° C was more effective at restoring PPO than CWI14° C (d = 0.38) and CON (d = 0.28) 24 hours after exercise, whereas both CON (d = 0.20) and CWI5 (d = 0.37) were more effective than CWI14° C after 48 hours. Cold water immersion (CWI) was more effective than CON at restoring PPO 72 hours after exercise (d = 0.28-0.30). Mean power output (MPO) was higher in CON compared with CWI5° C (d = 0.30) and CWI14° C (d = 0.21), but there was no difference between CWI5° C and CWI14° C (d = 0.08). CWI5° C was more effective than CWI14° C for restoring MPO to baseline levels 24 hours (d = 0.28) and 72 hours (d = 0.28) after exercise; however, CON was more, or equally, effective as CWI5° C and CWI14° C throughout. Lactate and creatine kinase concentrations were unaffected. Perceived muscle soreness remained elevated in CWI5 and CON throughout but was similar to baseline in CWI14° C after 72 hours. In conclusion, repeated bouts of exercise are initially impaired after 5 and 14° C CWI, but PPO may be improved 72 hours after exercise. Cold water immersion is not recommended for acute recovery based on these data. Athletes and coaches should use the time currently allocated to CWI for more effective and alternative recovery modalities.
安德森、D、纳恩、J 和泰勒、CJ。比较了 14°C（CWI14°C）和 5°C（CWI5°C）冷水浸泡对间歇性跑步运动恢复的影响。在 3 次情况下，9 名男性团队运动运动员在 45 分钟的间歇性跑步运动后，分别接受了 12 分钟的 14°C（CWI14°C）、5°C（CWI5°C）冷水浸泡或非浸入式坐姿恢复（CON）。在运动前和运动后 0-72 小时测量了最大骑行表现和恢复标志物。所有干预后即刻降低了峰值功率输出（PPO）（d=1.8）。CWI5°C 在运动后 24 小时时比 CWI14°C（d=0.38）和 CON（d=0.28）更有效地恢复 PPO，而 CON（d=0.20）和 CWI5（d=0.37）在运动后 48 小时时比 CWI14°C 更有效。冷水浸泡（CWI）在运动后 72 小时时比 CON 更有效地恢复 PPO（d=0.28-0.30）。与 CWI5°C（d=0.30）和 CWI14°C（d=0.21）相比，CON 的平均功率输出（MPO）更高，但 CWI5°C 和 CWI14°C 之间没有差异（d=0.08）。CWI5°C 在运动后 24 小时（d=0.28）和 72 小时（d=0.28）时比 CWI14°C 更有效地恢复 MPO 至基线水平；然而，在整个过程中，CON 与 CWI5°C 和 CWI14°C 一样有效，或者更有效。乳酸和肌酸激酶浓度不受影响。在 CWI5 和 CON 中，肌肉酸痛感在整个过程中仍然升高，但在 CWI14°C 后 72 小时与基线相似。总之，在 5°C 和 14°C CWI 后，反复的运动初期会受到损害，但 PPO 可能在运动后 72 小时得到改善。根据这些数据，冷水浸泡不建议用于急性恢复。运动员和教练应该将当前用于 CWI 的时间用于更有效和替代的恢复方式。
