Background Cold water immersion (CWI) is a technique commonly used in post-exercise recovery. However, the procedures involved in the technique may vary, particularly in terms of water temperature and immersion time, and the most effective approach remains unclear. Objectives The objective of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of CWI in muscle soreness management compared with passive recovery. We also aimed to identify which water temperature and immersion time provides the best results. Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, PEDro [Physiotherapy Evidence Database], and CEN-TRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases were searched up to January 2015. Only randomized controlled trials that compared CWI to passive recovery were included in this review. Data were pooled in a meta-analysis and described as weighted mean differences (MDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Conclusions The available evidence suggests that CWI can be slightly better than passive recovery in the management of muscle soreness. The results also demonstrated the presence of a dose-response relationship, indicating that CWI with a water temperature of between 11 and 15°C and an immersion time of 11-15 min can provide the best results. Key PointsCold water immersion (CWI) can be slightly better than passive recovery in management of muscle soreness.The findings suggest a dose-response relationship, indicating that CWI at a temperature between 11 and 15°C for 11-15 min can provides the best results for both immediate and delayed effects.A potential risk of bias was identified by methodological quality assessment of the studies included, identifying a need for higher-quality studies to affirm that the dose-response relationship of the results can be reliably reproduced.

Given the practicality and low cost of using elastic resistance in training for different populations and its effectiveness in a range of outcomes, a comparison with conventional devices could clarify and quantify the benefits provided by both mode. To compare the effects of resistance training with elastic devices (tubes and Thera-Bands) and conventional devices (weight machines and dumbbells) on the outcome muscular strength. A search was performed in the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from the earliest records up to 20 December 2017. Data were pooled into a meta-analysis and described as standardized mean difference with a 95% confidence interval (registration number: CRD42016042152). Eight studies were included. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated no superiority between the methods analyzed for upper limb (standardized mean difference = −0.011; 95% confidence interval = −0.40, 0.19; p = 0.48) or lower limb muscular strength (standardized mean difference = 0.09; 95% confidence interval = −0.18, 0.35; p = 0.52). Elastic resistance training is able to promote similar strength gains to conventional resistance training, in different population profiles and using diverse protocols.

Cold-water immersion (CWI) is one of the recovery techniques commonly used by athletes for post-exercise recovery. Nevertheless, the effects of CWI using different temperatures and the dose-response relationship of this technique have not yet been investigated. The aims of this study were to compare the effects of two strategies of CWI, using different water temperatures with passive recovery post exercise in the management of some markers of muscle damage, and to observe whether any of the techniques used caused deleterious effects on performance. Sixty healthy male participants performed an eccentric protocol to induce muscle damage and were then randomized to one of three groups (CWI1: 15 min at 9 °C; CWI2: 15 min at 14 °C; CG: control group). Levels of creatine kinase, muscle soreness, pain threshold, perception of recovery, and maximal voluntary isometric contraction were monitored up to 96 h post exercise. A large effect for time for all outcomes was observed [P < 0.001; CK (ES = 0.516), muscle soreness (ES = 0.368); pain threshold (ES = 0.184); perception of recovery (ES = 0.565); MVIC (ES = 0.273)]. CWI groups presented an earlier recovery for muscle soreness with lower ratings immediately post recovery. For delayed effects, the application of CWI2 (15 min at 14 °C) presented earlier recovery compared with CWI1 and control condition for maximal voluntary isometric contraction (P < 0.05). There were no significant group and interaction (Group × Time) effects. CWI groups acted more efficiently for muscle soreness and performance considering the time of recovery was observed. No evidence was found to suggest dose-response relationship and deleterious effects.

No abstract

No abstract