| Literature DB >> 33603794 |
Thibaut Méline1,2,3,4, Robert Solsona1, Jean-Philippe Antonietti5, Fabio Borrani6, Robin Candau2, Anthony Mj Sanchez1.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the effects of regular hot water bathing (HWB), undertaken 10 min after the last training session of the day, on chronic adaptations to training in elite athletes. Six short-track (ST) speed skaters completed four weeks of post-training HWB and four weeks of post-training passive recovery (PR) according to a randomized cross-over study. During HWB, participants sat in a jacuzzi (40 °C; 20 min). According to linear mixed models, maximal isometric strength of knee extensor muscles was significantly increased for training with HWB (p < 0.0001; d = 0.41) and a tendency (p = 0.0529) was observed concerning V ˙ O 2 m a x . No significant effect of training with PR or HWB was observed for several variables (p > 0.05), including aerobic peak power output, the decline rate of jump height during 1 min-continuous maximal countermovement jumps (i.e. anaerobic capacity index), and the force-velocity relationship. Regarding specific tasks on ice, a small effect of training was found on both half-lap time and total time during a 1.5-lap all-out exercise (p = 0.0487; d = 0.23 and p = 0.0332; d = 0.21, respectively) but no additional effect of HWB was observed. In summary, the regular HWB protocol used in this study can induce additional effects on maximal isometric strength without compromising aerobic and anaerobic adaptations or field performance in these athletes.Entities:
Keywords: Aerobic performance; Anaerobic performance; Exercise training; Hot-water bathing; Isometric strength
Year: 2021 PMID: 33603794 PMCID: PMC7859300 DOI: 10.1016/j.jesf.2021.01.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exerc Sci Fit ISSN: 1728-869X Impact factor: 3.103
Fig. 1Sequence of the experimental protocol. Athletes were randomized into two groups for a counter-balanced crossover study of two training periods (TP1 and TP2, respectively) of five weeks, including four weeks of PR or HWB training. At four occasions, athletes were asked to perform a battery of tests on two consecutive days. TP, training period; PR, passive recovery; HWB, hot water bathing; F–V relationship, force-velocity relationship; SJ, squat jump; CMJ, countermovement jump; iPPO, incremental peak power output.
Results of the different tests prior to and following the training period with hot water bathing (HWB) or passive recovery (PR).
| PR | HWB | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-training | Post-training | Pre-training | Post-training | |
| Body mass (kg) | 59.6 ± 6.3 | 58.2 ± 4.6 | 60.1 ± 6.4 | 59.2 ± 6.3 |
| Body mass index (a.u.) | 21.0 ± 0.9 | 20.5 ± 1.1 | 21.1 ± 0.9 | 20.8 ± 0.8 |
| Fat mass (%) | 12.3 ± 4.8 | 12.6 ± 4.2 | 12.8 ± 4.2 | 12.2 ± 5.0 |
| Lean mass (%) | 82.5 ± 4.7 | 84.0 ± 6.7 | 82.0 ± 4.1 | 82.4 ± 4.8 |
| Skeletal muscle mass (%) | 49.5 ± 3.3 | 50.5 ± 4.4 | 49.3 ± 2.9 | 49.7 ± 3.5 |
| Leg CSA (cm2) | 152.9 ± 20.8 | 155.9 ± 18.1 ∗ | 154.8 ± 19.6 | 156.2 ± 19.6 |
| KE CSA (cm2) | 79.4 ± 12.4 | 81.2 ± 10.8 ∗ | 80.5 ± 11.8 | 81.4 ± 11.7 |
| KF CSA (cm2) | 29.5 ± 6.0 | 30.4 ± 5.2 ∗ | 30.0 ± 5.8 | 30.6 ± 5.6 |
| SJ | 36.6 ± 8.4 | 36.2 ± 6.9 | 36.6 ± 8.2 | 36.7 ± 6.9 |
| CMJ | 37.8 ± 8.0 | 36.4 ± 6.5 | 37.8 ± 7.9 | 38.3 ± 7.7 |
| Pmax (W) | 1225 ± 286 | 1218 ± 276 | 1234 ± 304 | 1169 ± 258 |
| Pmax (W.kg−1) | 20.2 ± 3.0 | 20.2 ± 3.0 | 20.2 ± 3.0 | 19.2 ± 3.1 |
| Tmax (N.m−1) | 49.6 ± 4.1 | 51.2 ± 7.1 | 49.8 ± 6.8 | 52.4 ± 8.0 |
| Vmax (rpm) | 168 ± 21 | 169 ± 17 | 167 ± 14 | 166 ± 14 |
| Topt (N.m−1) | 32.4 ± 8.9 | 32.4 ± 6.6 | 31.0 ± 7.3 | 28.6 ± 5.1 |
| Vopt (rpm) | 119.6 ± 9.2 | 118.6 ± 10.8 | 125.4 ± 8.1 | 126.2 ± 11.7 |
| 165.9 ± 35.0 | 168.7 ± 29.7 | 159.3 ± 36.3 | 162.2 ± 26.3 | |
| 185.7 ± 5.0 | 186.2 ± 6.0 | 185.1 ± 7.6 | 184.2 ± 6.1 | |
| Time to exhaustion (s) | 556.7 ± 70.2 | 570.0 ± 75.0 | 553.3 ± 77.2 | 560.8 ± 67.9 |
| VT1 (% iPPO) | 60.0 ± 4.8 | 64.3 ± 2.5 | 60.3 ± 4.3 | 59.7 ± 7.3 |
| VT2 (% iPPO) | 86.0 ± 4.2 | 85.8 ± 5.0 | 86.9 ± 4.6 | 82.0 ± 8.0 |
| Time (s) | 16.6 ± 0.9 | 16.4 ± 0.8 ∗ | 16.6 ± 0.9 | 16.5 ± 0.7 |
| Mean velocity (m.s−1) | 10.1 ± 0.5 | 10.2 ± 0.5 | 10.0 ± 0.5 | 10.1 ± 0.5 |
| Time ½ lap (s) | 7.34 ± 0.45 | 7.28 ± 0.41 ∗ | 7.40 ± 0.48 | 7.32 ± 0.39 |
| Time (s) | 27.0 ± 1.4 | 26.9 ± 1.1 | 27.1 ± 1.0 | 26.8 ± 0.7 |
| Mean velocity (m.s−1) | 12.4 ± 0.6 | 12.4 ± 0.5 | 12.3 ± 0.4 | 12.4 ± 0.3 |
| Time (s) | 66.4 ± 3.7 | 66.0 ± 2.8 | 67.1 ± 2.6 | 66.3 ± 2.4 |
| Mean velocity (%) | 11.7 ± 0.6 | 11.8 ± 0.5 | 11.6 ± 0.5 | 11.8 ± 0.4 |
DATA are shown as mean ± standard deviation. CSA, muscle cross-sectional area; KE, knee extensor muscles; KF, knee flexor muscles; SJ, Squat jump (SJ); CMJ, countermovement jump; F–V relationship, force-velocity relationship; Pmax, maximal power output; Tmax, maximal torque; Vmax, maximal velocity; Topt, optimal torque; Vopt, optimal velocity; iPPO, incremental peak power output; , maximal ventilation; , maximal heart rate; VT1, first ventilator threshold; VT2, second ventilator threshold. ∗p < 0.05, training effect found with linear mixed models (exact p values are presented in the main text).
Fig. 2Results of isometric strength tests. (a) maximal strength of knee extensors muscles, (b) maximal strength of knee flexors muscles. PR, passive recovery; HWB, hot water bathing. Significant results were found with linear mixed models. Bars represent group mean and color lines represent individual responses.
Fig. 3Results of the fatigue index during the 1-min CMJ exercise. (a) Fatigue index calculated from jump height decline, (b) voluntary effort index, (c) total jump height, and (d) mean jump height. PR, passive recovery; HWB, hot water bathing. Bars represent group mean and color lines represent individual responses.
Fig. 4Results of the incremental peak power output (iPPO) test. (a) Maximal oxygen consumption (, and (b) aerobic peak power output. PR, passive recovery; HWB, hot water bathing. p = 0.0529, tendency for training with HWB found with linear mixed models. Bars represent group mean and color lines represent individual responses.