Trial reportJournal of sports science & medicine2026
Contrast Heat-Cold Versus Thermoneutral Showering in Trained Combat Sport Athletes: A Randomized Field Trial of Recovery Outcomes.
Trial report in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contrast heat-cold showering is popular for recovery, but multisystem evidence and persistence after cessation remain unclear. To evaluate whether a 4-week post-training contrast heat-cold shower intervention produces an integrated recovery profile across four domains (autonomic, endocrine, perceptual, and microvascular) rather than testing a single isolated physiological pathway, across baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1), and 2-week wash-out (T2). Sixty combat-sport athletes were randomized to contrast showers (10 min alternating warm 38-40°C and cold 13-15°C) or an active thermoneutral-shower comparator (10 min, 32-34°C) after training for 4 weeks. Primary analyses were per-protocol (≥ 75% compliance; n = 57), with intention-to-treat sensitivity analyses. Outcomes were Total Quality Recovery (TQR), morning salivary cortisol (two mornings averaged), resting HRV, and post-occlusive reactive hyperemia (PORH). From T0 to T1, favorable between-group changes were observed for resting HR (ΔΔ -2.10 bpm, 95% CI -2.24 to -1.96; g -0.65; p < 0.001), lnRMSSD (ΔΔ 0.123 log units, 95% CI 0.108 to 0.137; g 0.74; p < 0.001), with similar T1 effects for RMSSD and SDNN, and TQR (ΔΔ 0.61 points, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.95; g 0.80; p < 0.001). These T1 autonomic and perceptual changes were not maintained at T2 (all T2-T0 ΔΔ p > 0.05). Cortisol and PORH-derived outcomes showed no statistically clear between-group differences at T1 or T2 (all p > 0.05). Compared with thermoneutral showering, 4 weeks of post-training contrast heat-cold showering produced short-term favorable between-group changes in autonomic regulation and perceived recovery, but not in morning cortisol or PORH-derived microvascular reactivity. These effects were not maintained after wash-out; therefore, causal attribution to the shower intervention alone and claims of persistent physiological adaptation should be made cautiously. Trial registration: ISRCTN15418049.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.