The comparison of cold-water immersion and cold air therapy on maximal cycling performance and recovery markers following strength exercises.
Level 2 - randomized trial
Individual randomized controlled trial
PubMed 27069791 · doi:10.7717/peerj.1841
What was done
Twenty endurance-trained but strength-untrained adults (10 males, 10 females) completed a lower-body strength training session consisting of 3 sets of leg press, leg extensions, and leg curls at 6 repetition maximum. Participants were randomized immediately post-exercise to either cold-water immersion (CWI: 15 min in 14 °C water to the iliac crest) or cold air therapy (CAT: 15 min in 14 °C air). Creatine kinase, muscle soreness and fatigue, isometric knee extensor and flexor torque, and cycling anaerobic power were measured pre-exercise, immediately post-exercise, and at 24, 48, and 72 hours post-exercise.
What was found
No statistically significant differences were found between CWI and CAT for any measured variable (p > 0.05). Trends suggested recovery was greater in CWI than CAT for cycling anaerobic power at 24 h (10% ± 2%, ES = 0.90), 48 h (8% ± 2%, ES = 0.64), and 72 h (8% ± 7%, ES = 0.76).
Why it matters
By comparing temperature-matched air and water immersion (14 °C), this study isolates the potential contribution of hydrostatic pressure versus cold exposure alone during recovery from resistance exercise.
Limits
The sample size was small (n = 20 total, 10 per group), limiting statistical power. The study lacked a passive or non-cold control group. Participants were strength-untrained, which may not reflect responses in resistance-trained athletes.
Cited by
- supports Controlled trials demonstrate that hydrostatic pressure from water immersion provides physiological recovery benefits independent of water temperature.