Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three water immersion interventions performed after active recovery compared to active recovery only on the resolution of inflammation and markers of muscle damage post-exercise.MethodsNine physically active men (n = 9; age 20‒35 years) performed an intensive loading protocol, including maximal jumps and sprinting on four occasions. After each trial, one of three recovery interventions (10 min duration) was used in a random order: cold-water immersion (CWI, 10 °C), thermoneutral water immersion (TWI, 24 °C), contrast water therapy (CWT, alternately 10 °C and 38 °C). All of these methods were performed after an active recovery (10 min bicycle ergometer), and were compared to active recovery only (ACT). 5 min, 1, 24, 48, and 96 h after exercise bouts, immune response and recovery were assessed through leukocyte subsets, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, myoglobin and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations.ResultsSignificant changes in all blood markers occurred at post-loading (p < 0.05), but there were no significant differences observed in the recovery between methods. However, retrospective analysis revealed significant trial-order effects for myoglobin and neutrophils (p < 0.01). Only lymphocytes displayed satisfactory reliability in the exercise response, with intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.5.ConclusionsThe recovery methods did not affect the resolution of inflammatory and immune responses after high-intensity sprinting and jumping exercise. It is notable that the biomarker responses were variable within individuals. Thus, the lack of differences between recovery methods may have been influenced by the reliability of exercise-induced biomarker responses.

Highlights

  • High-intensity exercise results in numerous physiological perturbations and insufficient recovery from these perturbations might result in suboptimal performance and training quality during subsequent training sessions, while chronic imbalance between training stress and recovery might lead to suboptimal training adaptations (Bleakly & Davison 2010)

  • The main finding of this study was that water immersion methods did not alter circulating muscle damage and inflammation biomarkers after high-intensity sprinting and jumping exercise

  • The water immersion methods used in the present study were not shown to give any added benefits on the clearance of inflammation, nor did they attenuate muscle damage and inflammation responses assessed with circulating biomarkers

Read more

Summary

Introduction

High-intensity exercise results in numerous physiological perturbations and insufficient recovery from these perturbations might result in suboptimal performance and training quality during subsequent training sessions, while chronic imbalance between training stress and recovery might lead to suboptimal training adaptations (Bleakly & Davison 2010). Immersion strategies can be divided into four major categories: cold-water immersion (CWI; ≤ 20 °C), hot water immersion (HWI; ≥ 36 °C), thermoneutral water immersion (TWI; 21‒35 °C) and contrast water therapy (CWT; alternating CWI and HWI) (Versey et al 2013) These recovery interventions may be used with the intention of attenuating delayed onset of muscle soreness and accelerating recovery from muscle-damaging exercise (Pournot et al 2011; Versey et al 2013; Dupuy et al 2018). The majority of peer-review papers have observed limited positive effects of immersion compared to control groups for recovery measures, there is substantial heterogeneity in loading protocols and recovery responses To this end, meta-analytical data suggests potential small but positive effects of CWI (Bleakley et al 2012; Higgins et al 2017; Dupuy et al 2018) and CWT (Higgins et al 2017) on performance and/or perceptual recovery from high-intensity loading exercise. A number of mechanisms have been suggested to account for the enhanced acute recovery associated with post-exercise water immersions, one being a blunted inflammation response (White et al 2014)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call