Key result
Hot water immersion drives greater vascular and core temperature increases than aerobic exercise in overweight older adults.
Why the study?
Does hot water immersion improve acute macrovascular responsiveness compared to aerobic exercise in overweight older adults?
RCT (n=25)
randomized crossover
No
Does hot water immersion improve acute macrovascular responsiveness compared to aerobic exercise in overweight older adults?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.9% vs 0.7%
p-value: p=0.024
A single 30-minute session of hot water immersion induced larger acute vascular responses than aerobic exercise in overweight older adults, suggesting it may be a viable therapeutic alternative for individuals unable to exercise.
May offer exercise alternative for acute vascular stimulation in overweight older adults unable to participate; extends RCT physiological comparisons of heat therapy.
Recent studies have focused on the potential benefits of heat exposure for cardiovascular health. However, the acute effects of heat therapy on conduit arteries remain unclear, particularly in overweight and obese older males and females. This study aimed to compare core temperature ( T c ), heart rate (HR), and brachial, femoral, and carotid artery diameter and velocity (Doppler ultrasound) responses to an acute exercise (EXE) session versus hot water immersion (HWI), and to determine whether physiological responses are sex‐dependent. Twenty‐five overweight older adults (10♂/15♀; age: 59 ± 7, BMI: 29.4 ± 3.4 kg/m 2 ) underwent two experimental sessions (30 min): EXE (60–70% HR max ) and HWI (40°C). HWI resulted in a larger increase in T c across the session with the largest difference at 30 min (0.9 ± 0.3 vs. 0.7 ± 0.3°C; P = 0.024). No differences were observed in T c between males and females (interaction P = 0.271). HWI induced a lower rise in HR (♂ 40 ± 18 vs. ♀ 51 ± 12 bpm at 30 min; P = 0.013) than EXE, and females exhibited a larger change in HR after HWI than males (♂ 27 ± 12 vs. ♀ 48 ± 17 bpm; P = 0.003). HWI also induced a larger reduction in systolic (−6 ± 10 vs. 1 ± 7 mmHg; P = 0.012) and diastolic BP (−10 ± 9 vs. −2 ± 5 mmHg; P = 0.001) than EXE, but with no sex differences. HWI induced a larger increase in brachial diameter, brachial and femoral velocity, brachial and femoral flow, and shear rate than EXE. Females exhibited significantly higher change in femoral velocity (♀ 26 ± 8 vs. ♂ 17 ± 6 cm/s; P = 0.011) and shear rate (♀ 157 ± 55 vs. ♂ 98 ± 38 cm/s; P = 0.008) in response to HWI than males. A single session of HWI induced larger vascular responses than exercise. Males and females both benefit, but somewhat differently and possibly via different mechanisms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Costa et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Overweight and obese older adults with cardiovascular risk factors (n=25). Hot water immersion vs. Aerobic exercise (60-70% HRmax) was evaluated on Change in core temperature (Tc) at 30 min (p=0.024). A single 30-minute session of hot water immersion induced larger vascular responses and a greater increase in core temperature compared to aerobic exercise in overweight older adults.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: