Cold- and hot-water immersion are not more effective than placebo for the recovery of physical performance and training adaptations in national level soccer players

Abstract

Purpose: Cold- and hot-water immersion (CWI and HWI, respectively) are popular post-exercise recovery methods in competitive soccer. The aims of this study were to (1) compare the effect of post-exercise CWI, HWI and placebo on the recovery of physical performance in national level soccer players, and (2) investigate whether repeated use of these recovery modalities has an impact on training adaptations over a 15 week period.

Methods: For Part I, 40 male soccer players (15-19 years) were randomized to either CWI (10 °C, 10 min), HWI (42 °C, 20 min), or placebo (6 min, sham laser), applied after a 90 min simulated soccer match (SSM). Physical performance was assessed using submaximal aerobic, 20 m sprint, countermovement jump (CMJ), and knee extension strength tests [i.e., maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) and time to exhaustion (TTE) at 60% of MVIC] performed at Pre-SSM and 0, 21 and 45 h Post-SSM. For Part II, 19 participants applied their respective recovery modality (~ twice a week) in their usual training. After 15 weeks, physical performance and body composition were assessed and compared to pre-intervention.

Results: All three modalities similarly affected the recovery of physical performance during the 21-45 h Post-SSM period (p < 0.05). Moreover, no significant effects of the recovery modalities on body composition and on development of physical performance were found over the 15 week recovery intervention (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: Compared to a placebo, CWI and HWI do not improve post-match recovery of physical performance and do not impact long-term training adaptations in highly trained soccer players.

Keywords: Athletes; Cooling; Exercise; Fatigue; Football; Heating.

Fig. 1

Experimental design

Fig. 2

Heart rate (a), rating of perceived exertion (b) and lactate concentration (c) following the submaximal aerobic test (Part I). Data are presented as mean ± SD, *** p < 0.001 vs Pre-SSM. * p < 0.05 vs Pre-SSM. CWI cold-water immersion, HR heart rate, HWI hot-water immersion, RPE rating of perceived exertion, SSM simulated soccer match. A: Placebo, n = 12; CWI, n = 11; HWI, n = 12. B and C: Placebo, n = 13; CWI, n = 13; HWI n = 14

Fig. 3:

20 m sprint time (Part I). Data are presented as mean ± SD, * p < 0.05 vs Pre-SSM. CWI cold-water immersion, HWI hot-water immersion. SSM simulated soccer match. Placebo, n = 13; CWI, n = 13; HWI, n = 14

Fig. 4

Jump height (a), Peak force (b), Peak power (c) and Squat depth (d) during the countermovement jump (Part I). Data are presented as mean ± SD, * p < 0.05 vs Pre-SSM. *** p < 0.001 vs Pre-SSM, CMJ counter movement jump, CWI cold-water immersion, HWI hot-water immersion, SSM simulated soccer match. Placebo, n = 13; CWI, n = 13; HWI, n = 14

Fig. 5

Strength of the knee extensors: Maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) peak force (a) and Time to exhaustion (b) (Part I). Data are presented as mean ± SD, *** p < 0.001 vs Pre-SSM. CWI cold-water immersion, HWI hot-water immersion, SSM simulated soccer match. Placebo, n = 13; CWI, n = 13; HWI, n = 14. B: Time to exhaustion (TTE) at 60% MVIC, Placebo, n = 13; CWI, n = 12; HWI n = 14