Comparison Of Two Cold Water Immersions Protocols On Psychological Variables Of Recovery

Abstract

In sport, recovery is a multifactorial process and one modality commonly recommended for athletes is cold water immersion (CWI). Few studies, have analyzed the psychological effects of CWI protocols, specifically with regards to pain and perceived recovery. PURPOSE: Compare the effects of two CWI protocols on psychological variables of recovery. METHODS: Forty healthy male participants (age 21.8 ± 2.76 years, weight 73.15 ± 8.15 kg, height 176.6 ± 5.3 cm, and 13.5 ± 3.4% body fat). Participants performed a fatigue protocol (8 sets of 30-second countermovement jumps with 90-second of rest between sets). Were randomized to one of three recovery conditions: control group (CG) (12-min sitting in a 23 °C room), continuous cold water immersion (CnCWI) (12-min in water at 12 ± 0.4 °C), and intermittent cold water immersion (InCWI) (12-min in water at 12 ± 0.4 °C as follows: 2-min in cold water, 1-min in a controlled environment at 23 °C, until the 12-min of immersions were completed). Delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) was assessed trough a Visual Analog Scale (VAS-Pain) and perceived recovery were used. Both were evaluated at pre, post-CWI, 24 and 48 hours post. A mixed ANOVA was used. Significance was accepted at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found in DOMS (F(8,148) = 5.15. p < .001. ωp2= .174) in post immersion CnCWI vs. CG (2.7± 2,28 vs. 6.42 ± 1.9, p < 0.001) and InCWI vs. CG (2.7 ± 2.1 vs. 6.42 ± 1.9, p < 0.001), in the post 24h CnCWI vs. CG (3.07 ± 2.3 vs. 5.1± 1.7, p < 0.011) and InCWI vs. CG (3.2 ± 1.8 vs. 5.1± 1.7, p < 0.01). In the post 48h testing, results showed CnCWI vs. CG (3.3 ± 2.3 vs. 6,1 ± 2.2, p < 0.002) and InCWI vs. CG (3 ± 1.9 vs. 6.1 ± 2.2, p < 0.001). In terms of perceived recovery (F(6, 111) = 2.49. p=.027. ωp2= .070), results included post immersion CnCWI vs. CG (15.92 ± 1.7 vs. 14 ± 1.2, p < 0.001) and InCWI vs. CG (16.3 ± 1.6 vs. 14 ± 1.2, p < 0.001), in the post 24h CnCWI vs. CG (16.3 ± 2.4 vs. 12.8 ± 1.12, p < 0.001) and InCWI vs. CG (14.9 ± 2 vs. 12.8 ± 1.12, p < 0.001). In the case of post 48h, results were CnCWI vs. CG (15.9 ± 2.6 vs. 12 ± 3.3, p < 0.001) and InCWI vs. CG (15.3 ± 2.6 vs. 12 ± 3.3, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CWI protocols are effective in reducing DOMS and improving perceived recovery all post fatigue measurements. Either the CnCWI or InCWI protocol could be used as both had similar effects on psychological variables of recovery.