International journal of sports physiology and performance · 2016
Recovery From Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage: Cold-Water Immersion Versus Whole-Body Cryotherapy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abaïdia Abd-Elbasset, Lamblin Julien, Delecroix Barthélémy, Leduc Cédric, McCall Alan, Nédélec Mathieu, Dawson Brian, Baquet Georges, Dupont Grégory
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the effects of cold-water immersion (CWI) and whole-body cryotherapy (WBC) on recovery kinetics after exercise-induced muscle damage.
METHODS: Ten physically active men performed single-leg hamstring eccentric exercise comprising 5 sets of 15 repetitions. Immediately postexercise, subjects were exposed in a randomized crossover design to CWI (10 min at 10°C) or WBC (3 min at -110°C) recovery. Creatine kinase concentrations, knee-flexor eccentric (60°/s) and posterior lower-limb isometric (60°) strength, single-leg and 2-leg countermovement jumps, muscle soreness, and perception of recovery were measured. The tests were performed before and immediately, 24, 48, and 72 h after exercise.
RESULTS: Results showed a very likely moderate effect in favor of CWI for single-leg (effect size [ES] = 0.63; 90% confidence interval [CI] = -0.13 to 1.38) and 2-leg countermovement jump (ES = 0.68; 90% CI = -0.08 to 1.43) 72 h after exercise. Soreness was moderately lower 48 h after exercise after CWI (ES = -0.68; 90% CI = -1.44 to 0.07). Perception of recovery was moderately enhanced 24 h after exercise for CWI (ES = -0.62; 90% CI = -1.38 to 0.13). Trivial and small effects of condition were found for the other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: CWI was more effective than WBC in accelerating recovery kinetics for countermovement-jump performance at 72 h postexercise. CWI also demonstrated lower soreness and higher perceived recovery levels across 24-48 h postexercise.
METHODS: Ten physically active men performed single-leg hamstring eccentric exercise comprising 5 sets of 15 repetitions. Immediately postexercise, subjects were exposed in a randomized crossover design to CWI (10 min at 10°C) or WBC (3 min at -110°C) recovery. Creatine kinase concentrations, knee-flexor eccentric (60°/s) and posterior lower-limb isometric (60°) strength, single-leg and 2-leg countermovement jumps, muscle soreness, and perception of recovery were measured. The tests were performed before and immediately, 24, 48, and 72 h after exercise.
RESULTS: Results showed a very likely moderate effect in favor of CWI for single-leg (effect size [ES] = 0.63; 90% confidence interval [CI] = -0.13 to 1.38) and 2-leg countermovement jump (ES = 0.68; 90% CI = -0.08 to 1.43) 72 h after exercise. Soreness was moderately lower 48 h after exercise after CWI (ES = -0.68; 90% CI = -1.44 to 0.07). Perception of recovery was moderately enhanced 24 h after exercise for CWI (ES = -0.62; 90% CI = -1.38 to 0.13). Trivial and small effects of condition were found for the other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: CWI was more effective than WBC in accelerating recovery kinetics for countermovement-jump performance at 72 h postexercise. CWI also demonstrated lower soreness and higher perceived recovery levels across 24-48 h postexercise.