↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of Two Cold Water Immersion Protocols on Neuromuscular Function Recovery: A Tensiomyography Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of Two Cold Water Immersion Protocols on Neuromuscular Function Recovery: A Tensiomyography Study
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00766
Pubmed ID
Authors

Braulio Sánchez-Ureña, Daniel Rojas-Valverde, Randall Gutiérrez-Vargas

Abstract

Cold water immersion (CWI) has become a highly used recovery method in sports sciences, which seeks to minimize fatigue and accelerate recovery processes; however, tensiomyography (TMG) is a new method to analyze the muscle mechanical response as a recovery indicator after CWI protocols, this relative new tool of muscle function assessment, can lead to new information of understand fatigue recovery trough CWI. The objective of the study was to compare the effect of two CWI protocols, on neuromuscular function recovery. Thirty-nine healthy males (21.8 ± 2.8 years, 73.2 ± 8.2 kg, 176.6 ± 5.3 cm and body fat 13.5 ± 3.4%) were included in the study. Participants were grouped into a continuous immersion (12 min at 12 ± 0.4°C) group, intermittent immersion (2 min immersion at 12 ± 0.4°C + 1 min out of water 23 ± 0.5°C) group, and a control group (CG) (12 min sitting in a room at 23 ± 0.5°C). Afterward, the participants performed eight sets of 30 s counter movement jumps (CMJs) repetitions, with a 90 s standing recovery between sets. Muscle contraction time (Tc), delay time (Td), muscle radial displacement (Dm), muscle contraction velocity at 10% of DM (V10), and muscle contraction velocity at 90% of DM (V90) in rectus, biceps femoris, and CMJ were measured. Neither CWI protocol was effective in showing improved recovery at 24 and 48 h after training compared with the CG (p > 0.05), in any TMG indicator of recovery in either muscle biceps or rectus femoris, nor was the CMJ performance (F(6,111) = 0.43, p = 0.85, ω p 2 = 0). Neither CWI protocol contributed to recovery of the neuromuscular function indicator.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 19%
Student > Master 15 13%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 29 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 36 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Environmental Science 1 <1%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 39 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,076,506
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#2,047
of 13,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,025
of 329,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#118
of 527 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,833 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,059 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 527 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.