A1 Journal article (refereed)
Water immersion methods do not alter muscle damage and inflammation biomarkers after high-intensity sprinting and jumping exercise (2020)
Ahokas, E. K., Kyröläinen, H., Mero, A., Walker, S., Hanstock, H. G., & Ihalainen, J. K. (2020). Water immersion methods do not alter muscle damage and inflammation biomarkers after high-intensity sprinting and jumping exercise. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 120(10), 2625-2634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-020-04481-8
JYU authors or editors
Publication details
All authors or editors: Ahokas, Essi K.; Kyröläinen, Heikki; Mero, Antti; Walker, Simon; Hanstock, Helen G.; Ihalainen, Johanna K.
Journal or series: European Journal of Applied Physiology
ISSN: 1439-6319
eISSN: 1439-6327
Publication year: 2020
Publication date: 02/09/2020
Volume: 120
Issue number: 10
Pages range: 2625-2634
Publisher: Springer
Publication country: Germany
Publication language: English
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-020-04481-8
Publication open access: Openly available
Publication channel open access: Partially open access channel
Publication is parallel published (JYX): https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/71643
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three water immersion interventions performed after active recovery compared to active recovery only on the resolution of inflammation and markers of muscle damage post-exercise.
Methods
Nine physically active men (n = 9; age 20‒35 years) performed an intensive loading protocol, including maximal jumps and sprinting on four occasions. After each trial, one of three recovery interventions (10 min duration) was used in a random order: cold-water immersion (CWI, 10 °C), thermoneutral water immersion (TWI, 24 °C), contrast water therapy (CWT, alternately 10 °C and 38 °C). All of these methods were performed after an active recovery (10 min bicycle ergometer), and were compared to active recovery only (ACT). 5 min, 1, 24, 48, and 96 h after exercise bouts, immune response and recovery were assessed through leukocyte subsets, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, myoglobin and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations.
Results
Significant changes in all blood markers occurred at post-loading (p < 0.05), but there were no significant differences observed in the recovery between methods. However, retrospective analysis revealed significant trial-order effects for myoglobin and neutrophils (p < 0.01). Only lymphocytes displayed satisfactory reliability in the exercise response, with intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.5.
Conclusions
The recovery methods did not affect the resolution of inflammatory and immune responses after high-intensity sprinting and jumping exercise. It is notable that the biomarker responses were variable within individuals. Thus, the lack of differences between recovery methods may have been influenced by the reliability of exercise-induced biomarker responses.
Keywords: strength training; recovery (return); inflammation; bath therapy; cryotherapy; thermotherapy
Free keywords: cold-water immersion; thermoneutral water immersion; contrast water therapy; recovery; inflammation
Contributing organizations
Ministry reporting: Yes
Reporting Year: 2020
JUFO rating: 1
