Key result
Cold water immersion did not demonstrate better efficacy compared with passive recovery in the combined analysis of post-exercise recovery parameters (69.17% vs 63.4%, p=0.09).
Why the study?
The study was designed to propose a mathematical model to analyze the post-training recovery of perceptive, functional, metabolic, and autonomic parameters following cold water immersion.
Does cold water immersion improve post-exercise recovery in male soccer players?
RCT (n=64)
randomized
Does cold water immersion improve post-exercise recovery in male soccer players?
Absolute Event Rate: 69.17% vs 63.4%
p-value: p=0.09
Cold water immersion did not significantly improve overall post-exercise recovery compared to passive recovery when assessed by a combined mathematical model, though isolated benefits in lactate clearance and heart rate variability were observed.
Does not support cold water immersion over passive recovery for overall post-exercise recovery in soccer players; challenges routine use and leaves isolated benefits open.
Micheletti, JK, Vanderlei, FM, Machado, AF, de Almeida, AC, Nakamura, FY, Netto Junior, J, and Pastre, CM. A new mathematical approach to explore the post-exercise recovery process and its applicability in a cold water immersion protocol. J Strength Cond Res 33(5): 1266-1275, 2019-The objective of this study was to propose a mathematical model to analyze the post-training recovery of perceptive, functional, metabolic, and autonomic parameters from the use of cold water immersion (CWI) through isolated and combined analysis. Following simulated training, 64 male soccer players were randomized into an experimental group (EG: CWI, 13 ± 1° C; 15 minutes) and a control group (CG: passive recovery; 15 minutes). Perceptive (soreness and perception of recovery), autonomic (heart rate variability [HRV]), metabolic (lactate concentration), and functional parameters (squat jump, T agility test, sprint test, 40-second test, and maximal voluntary isometric contraction) were analyzed before and at specific moments after training (without exceeding 2 hours after training). The variables were analyzed using the raw data, dichotomization of each variable (isolated analysis), and through a mathematical model using the combination of all parameters analyzed (combined analysis). The combined analysis did not demonstrate better efficacy of the EG compared with the CG (69.17 and 63.4%, p = 0.09). In the isolated analysis, a chance of the technique being better was observed in the metabolic parameter at 1 and 2 hours after training (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval = 3.75 [1.01-13.88] and 11.11 [1.25-98.49]), respectively, and in the autonomic parameter at 40-45 minutes after training (4.4 [1.09-17.67]). For the raw data, all parameters analyzed presented recovery by 2 hours after training for both groups. Based on the proposed mathematical model, it is concluded that CWI is not better than the control condition. However, considering the analysis of variables in isolation, the technique presents a better chance of recovery for blood lactate concentration and HRV.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Micheletti et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Post-exercise recovery (n=64). Cold water immersion (CWI) vs. Passive recovery; 15 minutes was evaluated on Combined analysis of perceptive, functional, metabolic, and autonomic parameters (p=0.09). Cold water immersion did not demonstrate better efficacy compared with passive recovery in the combined analysis of post-exercise recovery parameters (69.17% vs 63.4%, p=0.09).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: