Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32880050›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2020

Water immersion methods do not alter muscle damage and inflammation biomarkers after high-intensity sprinting and jumping exercise.

E K Ahokas, H Kyröläinen, A A Mero, S Walker, H G Hanstock, J K Ihalainen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

E K AhokasBiology of Physical Activity, NeuroMuscular Research Center, Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, P.O Box 35, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1366-9884
H KyröläinenBiology of Physical Activity, NeuroMuscular Research Center, Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, P.O Box 35, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland.
A A MeroBiology of Physical Activity, NeuroMuscular Research Center, Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, P.O Box 35, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland.
S WalkerBiology of Physical Activity, NeuroMuscular Research Center, Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, P.O Box 35, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6804-0741
H G HanstockSwedish Winter Sports Research Centre, Department of Health Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5381-736X
J K IhalainenBiology of Physical Activity, NeuroMuscular Research Center, Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, P.O Box 35, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland. johanna.k.ihalainen@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9428-4689

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe 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.

methodsNine 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.

resultsSignificant 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.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

AdultBiomarkersCold TemperatureExerciseExercise TestHumansImmersionInflammationMaleMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthRecovery of FunctionReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesWaterYoung AdultBiomarkersWaterCold-water immersionContrast water therapyInflammationRecoveryThermoneutral water immersion

Identifiers

PMID32880050
PMCPMC7674333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.