Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate the effects of repeated use of cold-water immersion (CWI) during a training week on performance and perceptive outcomes in competitive adolescent swimmers.
Methods
This randomized-crossover study included 20 athletes, who received each intervention [CWI (14 ± 1 °C), thermoneutral water immersion (TWI) (27 ± 1 °C) as placebo, and passive recovery (PAS)] three times a week between the land-based resistance training and swim training. The interventions were performed in a randomized order with a 1-week wash-out period. We tested athletes before and after each intervention week regarding swim (100 m freestyle sprints) and functional performance (flexibility, upper and lower body power, and shoulder proprioception). We monitored athlete’s perceptions (well-being, heaviness, tiredness, discomfort and pain) during testing sessions using a 5-item questionnaire. Athlete preferences regarding the interventions were assessed at the end of the study. We used generalized linear mixed models and generalized estimating equations for continuous and categorical variables, respectively (intervention x time).
Results
We found a time effect for swim performance (p = .01) in which, regardless the intervention, all athletes improved sprint time at post-intervention compared to baseline. There was an intervention effect for pain (p = .04) and tiredness (p = .04), but with no significant post-hoc comparisons. We found no significant effects for other outcomes. All athletes reported a preference for CWI or TWI in relation to PAS.
Conclusion
The repeated use of CWI throughout a training week did not impact functional or swim performance outcomes of competitive adolescent swimmers. Perceptive outcomes were also similar across interventions; however, athletes indicated a preference for both CWI and TWI.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
There is increased demand in the competitive swimming field to explore aspects related to training biomechanics and physiology for performance enhancement (Crowley et al. 2017). Resistance training is commonly practiced before swimming training sessions and has been recommended to be included as part of training routine instead of high volume of swimming training alone (Crowley et al. 2017). Strength training or swimming-specific dry-land training programs have shown benefits in enhancing swimming performance (Girold et al. 2007; Aspenes and Karlsen 2012; Arsoniadis et al. 2022), but they also result in increased rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and acute physiological and biomechanical alterations (Arsoniadis et al. 2019). Therefore, researchers have been investigating the stress-recovery balance mainly by means of post-exercise recovery strategies aiming at the return of metabolic and neuromuscular function (Kellmann et al. 2018).
In this scenario, cold-water immersion (CWI) stands out because of its relatively low cost and easy applicability. The implementation of post-exercise CWI between dry-land resistance training and swimming training can be the key to this stress-recovery balance, since it has been suggested that CWI may improve subsequent training load and quality (Barnett 2006; Kellmann 2010). Previous studies have extensively researched CWI acute responses (Chaillou et al. 2022) and found significant improvements in delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) (Batista et al. 2023) and general RPE (Hohenauer et al. 2015). However, CWI has been frequently used by coaches and athletes regardless of physiological and scientific rationale (Allan et al. 2021). Considering that the period between resistance and swimming training needs to be adequate to facilitate performance improvements (Arsoniadis et al. 2022), CWI could be an asset to enhance swimmer’s recovery.
Since athletes are constantly exposed to high training loads, researchers are currently interested in the effects of repeated use of CWI (Ihsan et al. 2021; Tavares et al. 2020, 2019; Chaillou et al. 2022) and its possible detrimental effects on training adaptations (e.g., decreased functional performance, and impaired hypertrophy), mainly because its effects on exercise-induced muscle damage is still controversial (Broatch et al. 2018). However, studies found no harm to performance when CWI was applied repeatedly (Tavares et al. 2020; Halson et al. 2014; Rowsell et al. 2011). In fact, recent research suggests that CWI may actually improve endurance performance, and discrepancy between findings may be found because different types of training (e.g., resistance, endurance and sprint exercises) may be affected differently (Chaillou et al. 2022; Malta et al. 2021; Ihsan et al. 2021). Although CWI may decrease swim performance immediately after its application (Parouty et al. 2010), 2 weeks of daily application have shown to improve sleep quality, reduce muscle soreness and promote faster return to homeostatic parasympathetic activity (Al Haddad et al. 2012). If CWI could improve swimmers’ perceptions of recovery from resisted exercises and, consequently, swimming training quality, we may be able to observe enhancements in different aspects of performance, such as power measured by functional tests and, ultimately, swim performance.
Researchers are recommended to use an integrated approach to evaluate post-exercise recovery (Kellmann et al. 2018; Micheletti et al. 2019). The evaluation of functional tests, for example, provides a more comprehensive understanding of the athletes’ overall physical capabilities (Smith et al. 2017) and enables the isolation of the specific effects of CWI on swimming performance. It also may offer valuable insights for coaches, professionals and athletes by identifying areas for improvement that extend beyond the scope of traditional swimming assessments. Moreover, because performance is the main goal in sport, perceptive outcomes are usually neglected. Due to the multifactorial nature of recovery, studies should investigate both physiological and psychological outcomes by integrating a method that explores different aspects of performance as well as perceptive variables (Kellmann et al. 2018; Micheletti et al. 2019). This approach has been previously used in swimmers and suggested to contribute to a better understanding of post-exercise recovery process (Carvalho et al. 2023). Therefore, our objective was to investigate the effects of repeated use of CWI, compared to thermoneutral water immersion (TWI) and passive recovery (PAS), on performance and perceptive outcomes of competitive adolescent swimmers. We hypothesized that CWI would improve both swimmers’ perceptions and performance, while PAS and TWI would not provide changes on any outcome.
Methods
Participants and study design
A convenience sample of 25 competitive adolescent swimmers from a local team was screened. To be included, male and female athletes should be healthy, over 12 years old and train regularly (i.e., 6 days/week) on the competitive team. After screening, 20 athletes were included in the study (sex: 12 male/8 female, age: 14.05 ± 1.79 years; mass: 59.86 ± 12.85 kg; height: 1.66 ± 0.10 m; BMI: 21.62 ± 3.07 kg/m2).
All procedures were registered on the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (No. RBR-67qgm2) and approved by the Sao Paulo State University Research Ethics Committee (CAAE: 92352318.0.0000.5402). Both participants and their legal guardians were informed about the study’s risks and benefits and given informed consent.
Procedures
This study is a randomized-crossover placebo-controlled clinical trial with 1:1:1 allocation reported according to the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) checklist for crossover trials (Schulz et al. 2010). The study was conducted over 6 weeks of the swimmers regular training which was composed of a resistance land-based training followed by swimming training during weekdays (i.e., Monday through Friday), and swimming tournament simulation on Saturdays (testing session). The land-based resistance training (37.8 ± 4.5 min) was already part of the team’s training plan and was performed every weekday at the beginning of each session before swimming training. This land-based resistance training was an adaptation of Morais et al. (2018) training protocol which consisted of a warm-up (e.g., 5 min of light run) followed by three sets of sit-ups, push-ups, squats, vertical jumps, burpees and mountain climbers and then, elastic band shoulder exercises (e.g., flexion, extension, abduction, internal and external shoulder rotation). The swimming training (136.8 ± 18.7 min; water temperature: 26 ± 2 °C) followed the periodization prescribed by the coach, and consisted of four sections: warm-up, skills sets, main sets and cool-down. A 15 min interval separated land-based and swimming training.
During the testing sessions (i.e., Saturdays), we assessed swim and functional performance. Athletes completed a standard warm-up followed by two 100 m freestyle sprints, (with a 30 min interval between them, and a standard cool-down) and a battery of functional performance tests.
Prior to the study, we performed a blinded balanced-block randomization with a balanced sex, age and competitive level ratio, and allocated athletes so that they performed all interventions (PAS, TWI and CWI) under three different sequences (Fig. 1). Aiming to allow baseline comparisons, the participants did not perform any intervention on odd weeks, and we implemented interventions on even weeks. Therefore, the study was six weeks in duration, classified as baseline weeks (week 1, week 3 and week 5) and intervention weeks (week 2, week 4 and week 6) (Fig. 1). On baseline weeks, participants trained as usual during weekdays without receiving any kind of intervention and were assessed on the respective Saturday to obtain reference values. For intervention weeks (i.e., week following baseline week), participants trained as usual and were assigned to receive one of the three recovery interventions, and then re-assessed on the respective Saturday. The option of having a baseline week prior to an intervention week was taken aiming to avoid possible confounding effects of the previous intervention.
To guarantee concealed allocation, an independent researcher assigned the participants, thus, therapists and participants had no previous knowledge of the intervention sequence. The assessors were also blinded to intervention allocation. All participants were analyzed for all three interventions, regardless of intervention adherence; however, participants were excluded from the analysis of the respective intervention if they missed one or both testing sessions.
Interventions
We implemented interventions on 3 days of the intervention week (Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays) immediately after the land-based resistance training and before swimming training (Fig. 2).
We instructed athletes assigned to the PAS to rest for 12 min, but were free to sit, stand or walk by the pool without entering the water or engaging in physical activity to simulate the actual training scenario.
We instructed athletes assigned to the TWI to enter a standard 200 L water tank, with thermoneutral water (27 ± 1° C) at the shoulder level for 12 min. We adopted the strategy reported by Broatch et al. (2014) by adding a skin cleanser solution (Cetaphil, Gentle Skin Cleanser, Australia) to the water in plain sight and leading participants to believe that this intervention was beneficial for post-exercise recovery. In our study, TWI was considered our placebo intervention.
We instructed athletes assigned to the CWI to enter a standard 200 L water tank with cold water (14 ± 1° C) at the shoulder level for 12 min. We monitored water temperature using a thermometer (XT-1234, Xtrad/Knup, Brazil) and controlled temperature by adding ice cubes to the tank. The dose was based on evidence for recovery of muscle soreness (11–15° C for 11–15 min) (Batista et al. 2023) and autonomic activity (14 ± 1° C) (Bastos et al. 2012). The water was constantly agitated by the therapist aiming to avoid a warmed thermal layer around the body during immersion.
Outcomes
The study was conducted during the preparation training phase (pre-season). We monitored external training load by weekly training volume (distance swam in meters), that was previously stablished by the coach (Supplementary file 1). We monitored internal training load by multiplying the Session Rating of Perceived Exertion (sRPE; 0–10 Borg scale) (Borg 1982) in both resistance (assessed immediately after) and swimming training (assessed 20–30 min after the main sets) by the session duration in minutes. Weekly RPE (wRPE) was obtained by the sum of resistance and swimming sRPE of all weekdays and represented the athlete’s internal training load.
We monitored the participant’s perceptions using a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (nothing, a little, moderate, a lot and extremely) regarding athlete’s well-being, heaviness, tiredness, discomfort and pain. Participants were previously familiarized with this scale throughout a pilot study. We asked participants to rate their perceptions after the 100 m sprint regarding the following sprint phases: beginning of sprint, middle of sprint, end of sprint, and after sprint. We assessed participant’s perceptions only in the intervention week. At the end of the study, all athletes were asked regarding their preference between the three interventions with the following question: “With which intervention did you feel more recovered for the swimming training?”.
We obtained sprint times from the coach with digital chronometer (HS-3, Casio, USA) during two 100 m freestyle sprints in a 25 m pool, with a 30 min interval between them. The best sprint (i.e., lowest time) and its respective data (i.e., perceptions) were considered for analysis. For the purpose of this study, we adjusted an international scoring system, known as FINA points, to individual’s performance using the participant’s best performance from the latest season instead of the modality’s world record (http://www.fina.org/content/fina-points). This outcome varies from 0 to 1000 and was calculated as FINA Points = \(1000 *({B/T)}^{3}\), where B is the participant’s best performance and T is the sprint time.
We assessed flexibility using the sit-and-reach test (Muyor et al. 2014). Participants were asked to sit with their feet touching the testing box and then slide with the dominant hand on top of the other at maximum distance without flexing their knees. The best score in centimeters of three attempts with 30 s interval was collected for analysis.
We assessed lower limb power using the squat jump test (Markovic et al. 2004). Participants were required to keep the soles of their feet in contact with the jump platform (Multisprint, Hidrofit, Brazil), lower limbs flexed at 90°, hands on the waist, trunk erect and without previous movements. The participants were then required to jump, keeping their knees extended until they touched the platform again. The best score in centimeters of three attempts with 30 s interval was collected for analysis.
We assessed upper limb power by bench press and pull up movements using a linear velocity transducer (T-force System, Ergotech, Murcia, Spain) (Pérez-Castilla et al. 2019). The tests were performed according to the equipment instructions (http://www.tforcesystem.com/tutorial.php) and their reliability was previously established in a pilot test. For the bench press, the participants laid on a bench with both feet on the ground. The transducer was attached to a free bar with fixed weight of 10 kg and the participants were asked to lower the bar slowly to the chest and then press to full arms’ extension explosively keeping their head, shoulders, and buttocks in contact with the bench. For the pull up, participants started from a neutral position, standing on the ground or a bench, depending on the participant’s height, with the arms extended and the transducer attached to their waist. Participants were then asked to raise themselves explosively. Participants completed three trials for each movement, with 30 s interval, and the best mean propulsive velocity in m/s was considered for analysis.
We assessed shoulder proprioception by an adaptation of the laser-pointer assisted angle reproduction test (Balke et al. 2011). The reliability of this test was previously established in a pilot test. A laser-pointer was fixed below the deltoid muscle of the participant’s dominant arm with a Velcro strap, and they were asked to stand, with bathing suits, at 1 m from a board fixed on the opposite wall with three targets marked individually at 55°, 90° and 125° of shoulder flexion. Initially, the participant was required to point the laser on the targets and memorize the three joint positions and then reproduce them in a randomized order but with their eyes covered. The points where the laser was aimed on the board were marked by the investigator without informing the patient. The distance in cm from the target on both vertical and horizontal axis were transformed in degrees by a custom software using the formula d = 100 x tanZ and the angular deviations were obtained \(AD= \sqrt{{ZX}^{2}+ Z{Y}^{2}}\). The smaller angular deviation in degrees was registered for analysis.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed on SPSS software version 18 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, EUA). We used repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare internal training loads (i.e., wRPE) between interventions and time. We analyzed effects of interventions on perceptive outcomes by Generalized Estimating Equations with ordinal distribution and cumulative logit link function. The predictors were intervention (PAS, CWI, and TWI) and time (Beginning of the sprint, Middle of the sprint, End of the sprint, after the sprint). Dependent variables were rated by a 5-point Likert scale and the last category (extremely) was used as reference. We analyzed effects of interventions on performance outcomes by Generalized Linear Mixed Models with normal distribution with intervention (PAS, CWI, and TWI) and time (baseline and post-intervention testing session) as predictors for flexibility, bench press, pull up and proprioception, and gamma distribution for sprint time and squat jump. Bonferroni adjustments were used for all significant main effects. Parameter estimates (B) and Exp (B) were reported along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), descriptive data were reported as median with minimum and maximum values for categorical data and means with standard errors for continuous data. All analyses assumed level of significance of p < 0.05. The athletes’ preference regarding interventions was analyzed descriptively.
Results
The analysis utilized data from 20 participants who completed all three interventions. However, due to missing data, the total number of participants considered for each intervention varied: 19 for CWI, 16 for TWI, and 16 for PAS. These dropouts were attributed to participants missing one or both testing sessions within specific conditions (Fig. 1).
We monitored the training load throughout the study due to the crossover design. Our repeated measures ANOVA of internal training loads found no significant main effects and, therefore, we can ensure that all interventions were performed under the same conditions (Supplementary file 2).
Table 1 presents the detailed results of interventions on performance outcomes. There were no interaction effects (intervention*time) for swim or functional performance outcomes. We only observed time effects for sprint time (p = 0.01) and FINA points (p = 0.01) of which, regardless the intervention, the athletes improved swim performance at post-intervention compared to baseline (Fig. 3). We found no significant main effects for any functional performance outcomes.
Figure 4 presents the results of swimmers’ perceptions regarding the 100-m sprint. As expected, there was a time effect (p < 0.01) for all perceptive outcomes in which the last stages of the sprint yielded the worst perceptions as observed by the increased chances of reporting pain, poor well-being, discomfort, tiredness and heaviness. There was a main intervention effect for pain (p = 0.04) and tiredness (p = 0.04); however, when looking at post-hoc comparisons, we observed no differences between interventions. No significant intervention*time interaction effects were observed.
After the trial, the participants were asked regarding their preference between the recovery interventions. Thirteen athletes (65%) felt more recovered after CWI, four athletes (20%) preferred TWI, and three athletes (15%) found both CWI and TWI effective. None of the athletes preferred passive recovery.
Discussion
This study aimed to investigate the effects of repeated use of CWI in competitive adolescent swimmers compared to control and placebo. Our main finding showed that repeated use of CWI during a training week did not change functional (flexibility, shoulder proprioception, lower and upper body power) nor swim performance (100 m freestyle sprint time). We also found a main intervention effect for pain and tiredness during the sprint.
Considering training-recovery balance, the interest in the effects of repeated use of CWI has risen considerably in order to speed-up recovery and improves training quality (Ihsan et al. 2021). Our results did not support our initial hypothesis that the repeated use of CWI between resistance and swim training would improve swim performance. Nevertheless, our results also do not support the belief that CWI could impair training adaptations (Kwiecien and McHugh 2021; Yamane et al. 2006), as we observed improvements in swim performance (sprint time and FINA points) regardless of intervention. This finding corroborates previous studies that found similar improvements in cycling performance between repeated use of CWI and passive recovery (Aguiar et al. 2016; Halson et al. 2014; Vaile et al. 2008).
Similarly, we found no differences in functional performance outcomes (flexibility, power, and proprioception) among interventions. The evaluation of these variables provides a more nuanced and detailed analysis of the impact of CWI on various aspects of athletic performance. A systematic review found that the repeated use of CWI decreased performance gains for 1RM (one-maximal repetition), maximal isometric strength and endurance (Malta et al. 2021), parameters which were not assessed in our study. In addition, it is worth noting that the duration of the CWI protocols in the studies included in this analysis ranged from four to 12 weeks. Other studies, applying CWI for 3 weeks, reported favorable effects of CWI on countermovement jump performance in volleyball (Tavares et al. 2020) and rugby (Tavares et al. 2019) athletes. Given these findings, it appears that a one-week evaluation may not provide sufficient time to observe changes in these functional parameters and, therefore, future studies assessing the effects of long-term CWI on swimmers are needed.
It is also important to emphasize that a neutral result should not be underestimated and, perhaps, the benefit of the cold is elsewhere (e.g., perception outcomes). Ihsan et al. (Ihsan et al. 2021) support the current findings highlighting that, when time to recovery is limited, CWI can improve training performance which might outweigh possible decrements to hypertrophy, especially when hypertrophy is not the main goal. For instance, our examination of perceptive outcomes during sprints revealed main intervention effects for pain and tiredness without significant post-hoc comparisons, which usually happens due to lack of statistical power. Although not significant, a trend for reduction of pain over the last strokes was observed favoring CWI in relation to PAS (p = 0.05). We believe that the repetitive use of CWI may help athletes feel more tolerant to pain, given its documented advantages in alleviating muscle soreness (Batista et al. 2023) and increasing pain threshold (Klich et al. 2018). These benefits could potentially be enhanced with a repeated application protocol. As training progresses and symptoms become more frequent, the impact of CWI could potentially become more pronounced.
Interestingly, pain perception did not differ between CWI and TWI. In the present study, we led participants to believe that TWI with the skin cleanser solution would be beneficial for post-exercise recovery. A placebo intervention can elicit expectations and promote health benefits via brain-body responses, thereby, contributing to perception of recovery (Wager and Atlas 2015). This was confirmed by the preference for TWI expressed by 20% of the participants. In fact, some athletes might not tolerate CWI protocols which can affect post-training experiences and, therefore, their opinion should be considered during the decision making of interventions to be used.
Some researchers discuss the appropriateness of the use of CWI in sight of its modest effect sizes (Wilson et al. 2021). One of the aims of recovery strategy is to improve the athlete’s experience between training stimuli so they can be recovered not only physically but also psychologically, by promoting general well-being. CWI is known to anticipate metabolic and autonomic recovery after exhaustive exercise (Bastos et al. 2012) in addition to reduce fatigue and swelling, which may alleviate perceptions of discomfort, thereby allowing participants to perform better during training sessions (Roberts et al. 2014). Despite our results not affirming this rationale through the absence of improvements in performance outcomes, it gains support from the high acceptance rate among swimmers, as none favored passive recovery, while 65% expressed a preference for cold-water immersion.
Some strengths and limitations of the present study should be addressed. The crossover design can be considered as a strength, since it allowed assessing the same sample in different conditions/interventions, but it restricted the intervention duration to a single week. Although it was enough time to observe performance enhancements in response to training, it may not be sufficient to study differences between experimental conditions. The study included individuals from 12 to 20 years old which may be a heterogeneous sample considering hormonal differences and, therefore, these results may not be extrapolated to the adult population. However, considering that this age range is a decisive period for preparation to elite competition we believe that our results may help coaches to improve adolescent swimmers training. Although we provided participants with instructions, we could not guarantee they gave their best when performing performance tests or rating their perceptions. Finally, swimmers could be conditioned to water immersion, which possibly influenced our findings and, therefore, this should be considered when extrapolating these results to other sports.
Practical applications
The debate surrounding the implementation of post-exercise recovery programs for competitive athletes persists, with the objective of optimizing their performance. Although CWI is a commonly used post-exercise recovery intervention, studies in the literature present inconclusive results regarding its effectiveness, especially because training characteristics are not considered when implementing it. When applied during training sessions, we did not observe detriments in performance, and athletes felt more recovered after doing CWI or TWI, in comparison to PAS (no intervention), emphasizing the importance of recovery in training routines.
Conclusion
In summary, we found that the repeated use of CWI throughout a training week did not impact functional or swim performance outcomes of competitive adolescent swimmers. Although perceptive outcomes during sprinting were also similar across interventions, athletes indicated a preference for both CWI and TWI in relation to PAS. Professionals and coaches may consider incorporating CWI as a recovery intervention for competitive adolescent swimmers during training weeks, with a focus on enhancing recovery rather than explicitly aiming for performance improvements. However, it is imperative to consider the athletes’ preferences and tolerance when incorporating CWI into their recovery protocols.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, NPB, upon reasonable request.
Abbreviations
- ANOVA:
-
Analysis of variance
- CIs:
-
Confidence intervals
- CWI:
-
Cold-water immersion
- DOMS:
-
Delayed-onset muscle soreness
- PAS:
-
Passive recovery
- sRPE:
-
Session rating of perceived exertion
- TWI:
-
Thermoneutral water immersion
- wRPE:
-
Weekly rating of perceived exertion
References
Aguiar PF, Magalhães SM, Fonseca IA, da Costa Santos VB, de Matos MA, Peixoto MF, Nakamura FY, Crandall C, Araújo HN, Silveira LR, Rocha-Vieira E, de Castro MF, Amorim FT (2016) Post-exercise cold water immersion does not alter high intensity interval training-induced exercise performance and Hsp72 responses, but enhances mitochondrial markers. Cell Stress Chaperones 21(5):793–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12192-016-0704-6
Al Haddad H, Parouty J, Buchheit M (2012) Effect of daily cold water immersion on heart rate variability and subjective ratings of well-being in highly trained swimmers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 7(1):33–38
Allan R, Akin B, Sinclair J, Hurst H, Alexander J, Malone JJ, Naylor A, Mawhinney C, Gregson W, Ihsan M (2021) Athlete, coach and practitioner knowledge and perceptions of post-exercise cold-water immersion for recovery: a qualitative and quantitative exploration. Sport Sci Health. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-021-00839-3
Arsoniadis GG, Bogdanis GC, Terzis G, Toubekis AG (2019) Acute resistance exercise: physiological and biomechanical alterations during a subsequent swim-training session. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0897
Arsoniadis G, Botonis P, Bogdanis GC, Terzis G, Toubekis A (2022) Acute and long-term effects of concurrent resistance and swimming training on swimming performance. Sports (basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/sports10030029
Aspenes ST, Karlsen T (2012) Exercise-training intervention studies in competitive swimming. Sports Med 42(6):527–543. https://doi.org/10.2165/11630760-000000000-00000
Balke M, Liem D, Dedy N, Thorwesten L, Balke M, Poetzl W, Marquardt B (2011) The laser-pointer assisted angle reproduction test for evaluation of proprioceptive shoulder function in patients with instability. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(8):1077–1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1285-6
Barnett A (2006) Using recovery modalities between training sessions in elite athletes: does it help? Sports Med 36(9):781–796. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200636090-00005
Bastos FN, Vanderlei LC, Nakamura FY, Bertollo M, Godoy MF, Hoshi RA, Junior JN, Pastre CM (2012) Effects of cold water immersion and active recovery on post-exercise heart rate variability. Int J Sports Med 33(11):873–879. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1301905
Batista NP, de Carvalho FA, Machado AF, Micheletti JK, Pastre CM (2023) What parameters influence the effect of cold-water immersion on muscle soreness? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin J Sport Med 33(1):13–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/JSM.0000000000001081
Borg GA (1982) Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 14(5):377–381
Broatch J, Petersen A, Bishop D (2014) Postexercise cold water immersion benefits are not greater than the placebo effect. Med Sci Sports Exerc 46(11):2139–2147. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000348
Broatch JR, Petersen A, Bishop DJ (2018) The influence of post-exercise cold-water immersion on adaptive responses to exercise: a review of the literature. Sports Med 48(6):1369–1387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0910-8
Carvalho FA, Batista NP, Diniz FP, Machado AF, Micheletti JK, Pastre CM (2023) Repeated massage improves swimmers’ perceptions during training sessions but not sprint and functional performance: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031677
Chaillou T, Treigyte V, Mosely S, Brazaitis M, Venckunas T, Cheng AJ (2022) Functional impact of post-exercise cooling and heating on recovery and training adaptations: application to resistance, endurance, and sprint exercise. Sports Med Open. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-022-00428-9
Crowley E, Harrison AJ, Lyons M (2017) The Impact of resistance training on swimming performance: a systematic review. Sports Med 47(11):2285–2307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0730-2
Girold S, Maurin D, Dugué B, Chatard JC, Millet G (2007) Effects of dry-land vs. resisted- and assisted-sprint exercises on swimming sprint performances. J Strength Cond Res. https://doi.org/10.1519/r-19695.1
Halson S, Bartram J, West N, Stephens J, Argus C, Driller M, Sargent C, Lastella M, Hopkins W, Martin D (2014) Does hydrotherapy help or hinder adaptation to training in competitive cyclists? Med Sci Sports Exerc 46(8):1631–1639. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000268
Hohenauer E, Taeymans J, Baeyens J-P, Clarys P, Clijsen R (2015) The effect of post-exercise cryotherapy on recovery characteristics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10(9):e0139028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139028
Ihsan M, Abbiss CR, Allan R (2021) Adaptations to post-exercise cold water immersion: friend, foe, or futile? Front Sports Act Living 3:714148. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.714148
Kellmann M (2010) Preventing overtraining in athletes in high-intensity sports and stress/recovery monitoring. Scand J Med Sci Sports 20(Suppl 2):95–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01192.x
Kellmann M, Bertollo M, Bosquet L, Brink M, Coutts AJ, Duffield R, Erlacher D, Halson SL, Hecksteden A, Heidari J, Kallus KW, Meeusen R, Mujika I, Robazza C, Skorski S, Venter R, Beckmann J (2018) Recovery and performance in sport: consensus statement. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 13(2):240–245. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2017-0759
Klich S, Krymski I, Michalik K, Kawczyński A (2018) Effect of short-term cold-water immersion on muscle pain sensitivity in elite track cyclists. Phys Ther Sport 32:42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2018.04.022
Kwiecien SY, McHugh MP (2021) The cold truth: the role of cryotherapy in the treatment of injury and recovery from exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 121(8):2125–2142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-021-04683-8
Malta ES, Dutra YM, Broatch JR, Bishop DJ, Zagatto AM (2021) The effects of regular cold-water immersion use on training-induced changes in strength and endurance performance: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Med 51(1):161–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01362-0
Markovic G, Dizdar D, Jukic I, Cardinale M (2004) Reliability and factorial validity of squat and countermovement jump tests. J Strength Cond Res 18(3):551–555. https://doi.org/10.1519/1533-4287(2004)18%3c551:Rafvos%3e2.0.Co;2
Micheletti J, Vanderlei F, Machado A, Almeida A, Nakamura F, Netto Junior J, Pastre C (2019) A new mathematical approach to explore the postexercise recovery process and its applicability in a cold water immersion protocol. J Strength Cond Res 33(5):1266–1275
Morais J, Silva A, Garrido N, Marinho D, Barbosa T (2018) The transfer of strength and power into the stroke biomechanics of young swimmers over a 34 week period. Eur J Sport Sci 18(6):787–795. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1453869
Muyor J, Vaquero-Cristóbal R, Alacid F, López-Miñarro P (2014) Criterion-related validity of sit-and-reach and toe-touch tests as a measure of hamstring extensibility in athletes. J Strength Cond Res 28(2):546–555
Parouty J, Al Haddad H, Quod M, Lepretre P, Ahmaidi S, Buchheit M (2010) Effect of cold water immersion on 100-m sprint performance in well-trained swimmers. Eur J Appl Physiol 109(3):483–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-010-1381-2
Pérez-Castilla A, Piepoli A, Delgado-García G, Garrido-Blanca G, García-Ramos A (2019) Reliability and concurrent validity of seven commercially available devices for the assessment of movement velocity at different intensities during the bench press. J Strength Cond Res 33(5):1258–1265. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000003118
Roberts L, Nosaka K, Coombes J, Peake J (2014) Cold water immersion enhances recovery of submaximal muscle function after resistance exercise. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 307(8):R998–R1008. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00180.2014
Rowsell G, Coutts A, Reaburn P, Hill-Haas S (2011) Effect of post-match cold-water immersion on subsequent match running performance in junior soccer players during tournament play. J Sports Sci 29(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2010.512640
Schulz K, Altman D, Moher D, Group C (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340:698–702. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c332
Smith J, DePhillipo N, Kimura I, Kocher M, Hetzler R (2017) Prospective functional performance testing and relationship to lower extremity injury incidence in adolescent sports participants. Int J Sports Phys Ther 12(2):206–218
Tavares F, Beaven M, Teles J, Baker D, Healey P, Smith T, Driller M (2019) Effects of chronic cold-water immersion in elite rugby players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 14(2):156–162. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0313
Tavares F, Simoes M, Matos B, Smith T, Driller M (2020) The acute and longer-term effects of cold water immersion in highly-trained volleyball athletes during an intense training block. Front Sports Act Living 2:568420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2020.568420
Vaile J, Halson S, Gill N, Dawson B (2008) Effect of hydrotherapy on recovery from fatigue. Int J Sports Med 29(7):539–544. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-989267
Wager TD, Atlas LY (2015) The neuroscience of placebo effects: connecting context, learning and health. Nat Rev Neurosci 16(7):403–418. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3976
Wilson LJ, Dimitriou L, Hills FA, Gondek MB, van Wyk A, Turek V, Rivkin T, Villiere A, Jarvis P, Miller S, Turner A, Cockburn E (2021) Cold water immersion offers no functional or perceptual benefit compared to a sham intervention during a resistance training program. J Strength Cond Res 35(10):2720–2727. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004097
Yamane M, Teruya H, Nakano M, Ogai R, Ohnishi N, Kosaka M (2006) Post-exercise leg and forearm flexor muscle cooling in humans attenuates endurance and resistance training effects on muscle performance and on circulatory adaptation. Eur J Appl Physiol 96(5):572–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-005-0095-3
Acknowledgements
We thank the athletes who participated in this study and their coach for allowing us to make this research possible.
Funding
This work was supported by the Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement (CAPES) and the Research Support Foundation of the State of São Paulo (FAPESP) under Grant 2020/11146-0 and 2018/09680-8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
NB, FC, AM, JM and CP contributed to the conceptualization and methodology. NB wrote the manuscript. NB, FC, and CR contributed to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work. NB and FC did the statistical analysis. All the authors critically revised the manuscript. All the authors read, gave final approval and agreed to the accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All the procedures were registered on the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (No. RBR-67qgm2) and approved by the Sao Paulo State University (UNESP) Research Ethics Committee (CAAE: 92352318.0.0000.5402). Both participants and their legal guardians were informed about the study’s risks and benefits and given informed consent.
Additional information
Communicated by George Havenith.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Batista, N.P., de Carvalho, F.A., Rodrigues, C.R.D. et al. Effects of post-exercise cold-water immersion on performance and perceptive outcomes of competitive adolescent swimmers. Eur J Appl Physiol 124, 2439–2450 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-024-05462-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-024-05462-x