Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Intermittent cold compression (ICC) is widely used for post-exercise recovery, but the optimal pressure for gastrocnemius recovery in soccer players remains unclear. This study investigated the immediate effects of different ICC pressure levels on gastrocnemius recovery after fatigue. Methods Seven male collegiate soccer players (national Level 2 or above) participated in a randomized crossover trial. Following a 90-minute soccer-specific fatigue protocol, participants received a single 20-minute, 1°C ICC intervention at either low pressure (LP, 5–15 mmHg) or moderate pressure (MP, 5–50 mmHg), with a 48-hour washout. Outcomes included subjective perceptions (VAS pain, Borg CR10 fatigue), motor function (countermovement jump [CMJ] height, peak force, peak power, concentric work, rate of force development [RFD]), muscle mechanical properties (tone, stiffness, elasticity), and muscle architecture (thickness, pennation angle), assessed pre-and post-intervention. Results Pain and RPE scores decreased significantly from pre- to post-intervention (p < 0.05), with no significant pressure or pressure × time effects. Significant time effects were found for CMJ height (F = 25.94, p = 0.002, η 2 ₚ = 0.812), peak force (F = 11.07, p = 0.016, η 2 ₚ = 0.649), and peak power (F = 13.17, p = 0.011, η 2 ₚ = 0.687), all declining post-intervention. Significant pressure × time interactions emerged for RFD (F = 6.07, p = 0.049, η 2 ₚ = 0.503) and lateral gastrocnemius logarithmic decrement (F = 9.21, p = 0.023, η 2 ₚ = 0.606). Conclusions While both regimens alleviated subjective symptoms, significant pressure × time interactions were observed for RFD and lateral gastrocnemius logarithmic decrement, suggesting that compression pressure may influence the acute neuromuscular and mechanical responses to ICC. These findings should be interpreted cautiously given the small sample size and the absence of significant within-condition changes in RFD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: