4.5 Article

Cold-water immersion decreases cerebral oxygenation but improves recovery after intermittent-sprint exercise in the heat

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/sms.12060

关键词

near-infrared spectroscopy; neuromuscular; heat strain; cold therapy; fatigue; muscle damage; cricket

资金

  1. Cricket Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the effects of post-exercise cooling on recovery of neuromuscular, physiological, and cerebral hemodynamic responses after intermittent-sprint exercise in the heat. Nine participants underwent three post-exercise recovery trials, including a control (CONT), mixed-method cooling (MIX), and cold-water immersion (10 C; CWI). Voluntary force and activation were assessed simultaneously with cerebral oxygenation (nearinfrared spectroscopy) pre-and post-exercise, postintervention, and 1-h and 24-h post-exercise. Measures of heart rate, core temperature, skin temperature, muscle damage, and inflammation were also collected. Both cooling interventions reduced heart rate, core, and skin temperature post-intervention (P < 0.05). CWI hastened the recovery of voluntary force by 12.7 +/- 11.7% (mean +/- SD) and 16.3 +/- 10.5% 1-h post-exercise com-pared to MIX and CONT, respectively (P < 0.01). Voluntary force remained elevated by 16.1 +/- 20.5% 24-h post-exercise after CWI compared to CONT (P < 0.05). Central activation was increased post-intervention and 1-h post-exercise with CWI compared to CONT (P < 0.05), without differences between conditions 24-h post-exercise (P > 0.05). CWI reduced cerebral oxygenation compared to MIX and CONT post-intervention (P < 0.01). Furthermore, cooling interventions reduced cortisol 1-h post-exercise (P < 0.01), although only CWI blunted creatine kinase 24-h post-exercise compared to CONT (P < 0.05). Accordingly, improvements in neuromuscular recovery after post-exercise cooling appear to be disassociated with cerebral oxygenation, rather reflecting reductions in thermoregulatory demands to sustain force production.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据