Search

Abstract Post‐exercise hot (HWI) and cold (CWI) water immersion are popular strategies used by athletes in a range of sporting contexts, such as enhancing recovery or adaptation. However, prolonged heating bouts increase neuroendocrine responses that are associated with perceptions of fatigue. Fourteen endurance‐trained runners performed three trials consisting of two 45‐min runs at 95% lactate threshold on a treadmill separated by 6 h of recovery. Following the first run, participants completed one of HWI (30 min, 40°C), CWI (15 min, 14°C) or control (CON, 30 min rest in ambient conditions) in a randomised order. Perceived effort and recovery were measured using ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and the Acute Recovery and Stress Scale (ARSS), whilst physiological responses including venous concentrations of a range of neuroendocrine markers, superficial femoral blood flow, heart rate and rectal temperature were measured. Exercise increased neuroendocrine responses of interleukin‐6, adrenaline and noradrenaline (all P 0.05), nor RPE (P = 0.68), despite differences in rectal temperature, superficial femoral blood flow following the first run, and participants’ expected recovery prior to the intervention (all P

BackgroundLittle information is available regarding the TL and training practices of competitive athletes who are solid-organ recipients. This study characterized TL and practices of competitive organ-recipients at the British and World Transplant Games, 2017.MethodsQuestionnaire data was gathered from 220 participants regarding sporting events and type, frequency, duration and intensity of training sessions undertaken. TL for each training session (session duration × session rating of perceived exertion [RPE]) and total TL were determined.ResultsOverall participants trained 5 ± 3 times per week at an RPE of 5 ± 2 AU for between 60 and 75 min per session (TL ∼1,500–1,875 AU). Most participants (n = 176; 79.7%) reported training three or more times each week. Approximately half (49%) the participants reported undertaking resistance training each week (3 ± 2 sessions per week, RPE of 6 ± 2 AU, 45–60 min per session; TL ∼810–1,080 AU, respectively). Of those participants undertaking resistance training 75% undertook two or more sessions each week. Participants generally undertook most events within a predominant sport with one or two events in a secondary sport. Typical weekly TL for the whole group was 2,762 ± 3,583 AU with considerable variation within and across sports (cycling 4,383 ± 4,005 AU; field athletics 3,671 ± 6,181 AU; court-based sports 2,645 ± 3,308 AU; high physical demand sports [e.g., skiing, triathlon] 2,595 + 2,247 AU; track athletics 2,547 ± 2,664 AU; swimming 2,091 ± 1,070 AU; low physical demand sports [e.g., darts, petanque, walking] 1,182 + 801 AU). Sports-specific TL for predominant and secondary sports was ∼1,500 AU. Resistance training and gym-based aerobic training were the most frequent non-specific training components undertaken. Most competitors (79%) were active in sport prior to transplant.ConclusionThe wide range of TL and components undertaken by athletes with solid-organ transplants likely reflects the multiple and diverse event participation of competitive organ-recipients as well as the diverse physical fitness profiles and incentives to participate. Optimization of TL both for multiple competitive sports and maintenance of health should be considered for these athletes.

Abstract Hot water immersion improves cardiovascular health and sporting performance, yet its adverse responses are understudied. Thirteen young and 17 middle‐aged adults (n = 30) were exposed to 2 × 30 min bouts of whole‐body 39°C water immersion. Young adults also completed cooling mitigation strategies in a randomized cross‐over design. Orthostatic intolerance and selected physiological, perceptual, postural and cognitive responses were assessed. Orthostatic hypotension occurred in 94% of middle‐aged adults and 77% of young adults. Young adults exhibited greater dizziness upon standing (young subjects, 3 out of 10 arbitrary units (AU) vs. middle‐aged subjects, 2 out of 10 AU), with four terminating the protocol early owing to dizziness or discomfort. Despite middle‐aged adults being largely asymptomatic, both age groups had transient impairments in postural sway after immersion (P

The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity of selected subjective and objective monitoring assessments in detecting changes in group and individual responses to low and high load bouts of high intensity intermittent exercise. In a counterbalanced crossover design, Thirteen Academy Rugby Union players (mean ± SD: age: 18 ± 1 years) performed a low load (15 min) and a high load (90 min) bout of high intensity intermittent exercise (Loughborough Intermittent Shuttle Test) one week apart. Monitoring assessments were performed immediately prior to and 20 h following each trial. Subjective self-report Well-being Questionnaire (WQ) items showed small to large deteriorations following the high load compared to low load (d = 0.4–1.5, p = 0.03–0.57). A very large increase in resting HR (HRrest) (d = 2.1, p = 0.02), moderate decrease in heart rate variability (HRV) indices (d = 0.7, p = 0.04 and d = 0.7, p = 0.01 for the natural logarithm of the standard deviation of R-R intervals (ln SDNN) and the root square of the mean squared differences of successive R-R intervals (rMSSD), respectively) and no change in countermovement jump (d = 0.0, p = 0.97) were evident following the high load compared to low load. Individual WQ responses revealed 7/9, 7/9, 6/9, 6/9, 5/9, 3/9 and 1/9 participants reported deteriorations in recovery, sleep quality, motivation, muscle soreness, fatigue, stress and appetite, respectively, following the high load compared to low load. Individual analysis indicated a negative response following the high load compared to low load in HRrest, ln SDNN and ln rMSSD for 4/6, 2/6 and 1/6 participants, respectively. Selected WQ items detected group and individual responses to high load and low load highlighting their potential utility. However, objective assessments lacked the sensitivity to detect small individual changes.

Purpose: There is emerging evidence that demonstrates the health benefits of hot water immersion including improvements to cardiovascular health and reductions in stress and anxiety. Many commercially available hot tubs offer underwater massage systems which purport to enhance many benefits of hot water immersion, however, these claims have yet to be studied., Methods: Twenty participants (4 females) completed three, 30-min sessions of hot-water immersion (beginning at 39 °C) in a crossover randomized design: with air massage (Air Jet), water massage (Hydro Jet) or no massage (Control). Cardiovascular responses comprising; heart rate, blood pressure and superficial femoral artery blood flow and shear rate were measured. State trait anxiety, basic affect, and salivary cortisol were recorded before and after each trial. Data were analysed using a mixed effects model., Results: Post immersion, heart rate increased (Δ31bpm, P < 0.001, d = 1.38), mean arterial blood pressure decreased (Δ16 mmHg, P < 0.001, d = -0.66), with no difference between conditions. Blood flow and mean shear rate increased following immersion (P < 0.001, Δ362 ml/min, d = 1.20 and Δ108 s -1 , d = 1.00), but these increases were blunted in the Air Jet condition (P < 0.001,Δ171 ml/min, d = 0.43 and Δ52 s -1 , d = 0.52). Anxiety and salivary cortisol were reduced (P = 0.003, d = -0.20, P = 0.014, d = -0.11), but did not vary between conditions. Enjoyment did not vary between conditions., Conclusion: These data demonstrate positive acute responses to hot water immersion on markers of cardiovascular function, anxiety, and stress. There was no additional benefit of water-based massage, while air-based massage blunted some positive vascular responses due to lower heat conservation of the water., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)