The Effect of Hydrotherapy on Recovery and Performance During High Intensity Exercise

Abstract

Athletes use a wide range of interventions to promote recovery from strenuous exercise, but few data are available regarding the efficacy of such practices. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of commonly used interventions [Rest, light exercise (AR), contrast therapy (CT) and cryotherapy (CR)] during recovery between bouts of intense exercise. We tested the hypothesis that hydrotherapy interventions (CT and CR) would induce favorable physiological and/or psychological alterations such that performance would be improved versus AR and Rest. METHODS: In Study I, 12 active men (25-35 yrs; VO2peak = 46±3 ml·kg-1·min-1; mean±SD) performed 5 consecutive days of HI exercise (4-6 bouts x 30 sec 'all out' Wingate Tests, with 4-min recovery, each day). After each training session, subjects either rested for 20 min (CON, n=6) or completed a CT protocol (n=6) that consisted of alternating cold (10°C) and hot (40°C) tubs using a 4x2:3 min ratio. Performance measures [Peak (Wmax) and mean (Wmean) power, VO2peak, and a 250 kJ Time Trial (TT)] were assessed before and after the HIT. In Study II, 9 active men (29±6 yr, VO2peak = 44±8 ml·kg-1·min-1) performed 3 exercise trials separated by 1 wk. Each trial consisted of 3 x 50 KJ time trials(~100-120%VO2peak) with a different 20-min recovery period [CON, AR (cycling@ SOW) or CR (cold tub@ 10°C)] between rides each week. Venous blood samples were obtained after each recovery period, and analyzed for lactate, interleukin-6, neutrophils, and lymphocytes. Questionnaires designed to assess exercise preparedness were also completed daily in both studies. RESULTS: In Study I, Wmax and TT performance improved after 5 d of HI exercise (time effect, P<0.05), but there were no differences between groups (Wmax-CT: Post: 1310±45 vs Pre: 1215±86; CON: Post: 1343±54 vs Pre: 1220±74 W: TT-CT: Post: 15.8±0.6 vs Pre: 16.7±0.7; Rest: Post: 18.1±1.0 vs Pre: 18.8±1.2 min, means±SEM). In Study II, TT performance averaged 118±10 sec for bout 1 and was 8% and 14% slower during bouts 2 (128±11 sec) and 3 (134±11 sec), respectively, with no difference between treatments (Time effect, P≤0.05). Blood lactate was lower after AR compared to CR and Rest, and neutrophils and lymphocytes were higher and lower respectively (P≤0.05), after CR (8.7±1.3 and 1.4±0.2 x 109cells/L) versus AR (7.1±1.0 and 1.6±0.1) and Rest (6.7±0.7 and 1.6±0.1). With respect to the psychological measurements, the CT and CR groups in both studies reported feeling more revitalized after each treatment session and greater preparedness for subsequent exercise (Treatment effect, P≤.05). CONCLUSIONS: Exercise performance during repeated bouts of intense cycling was not influenced by the type of recovery intervention employed, either during a single session or over the course of a 5 d training session. CR caused greater perturbations in blood immune markers and most notably, hydrotherapy interventions created the perception that subjects were better prepared for subsequent exercise.