In sport, recovery is a multifactorial process and one modality commonly recommended for athletes is cold water immersion (CWI). The physiologic benefits of CWI have been touted in several studies and reviews. Few studies, however, have analyzed the psychological effects of CWI protocols, specifically with regards to pain and perceived recovery. Purpose: Compare the effect of two protocols CWI on psychological indicators of recovery. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with forty healthy male participants (age 21.8 ± 2.76 years, weight 73.15 ± 8.15 kg, height 176.6 ± 5.3 cm, and 13.5 ± 3.4% body fat). Participants performed a fatigue protocol consisting of 8 sets of 30-second countermovement jumps with 90-second of rest between series. Then, participants were then randomized to one of three recovery conditions: control group (CG) = passive recovery (12-min sitting in a 23 °C room), continuous cold water immersion (CnCWI) = (12-min in water at 12 ± 0.4 °C), and intermittent cold water immersion (InCWI) = (a total of 12-mins in water at 12 ± 0.4 °C as follows: 2-min in cold water, 1-min in a controlled environment at 23 °C, until the 12 minutes of immersions were completed). Visual Analog Scale (VAS-Pain) and recovery perception scale were used at pre, post CWI, 24 and 48 hours. Data analysis performed using a mixed ANOVA to compare variables of interest. Significance was accepted at p < 0.05. Results: Statistically significant differences were found in delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) (F (8,148) = 5.15. p < .001. ωp2= .174) in post immersion CnCWI vs. CG (2.7± 2,28 vs. 6.42 ± 1.9, p < 0.001) and InCWI vs. CG (2.7 ± 2.1 vs. 6.42 ± 1.9, p < 0.001), in the post 24h CnCWI vs. CG (3.07 ± 2.3 vs. 5.1± 1.7, p < 0.011) and InCWI vs. CG (3.23 ± 1.8 vs. 5.1± 1.7, p < 0.019). In the post 48h testing, results showed CnCWI vs. CG (3.38 ± 2.3 vs. 6,14 ± 2.21, p < 0.002) and InCWI vs. CG (3 ± 1.9 vs. 6.14 ± 2.2, p < 0.001). In terms of recovery perception level (F (6, 111) = 2.49. p=.027. ωp2: .070), results included post immersion CnCWI vs. CG (15.92± 1.7 vs. 14 ± 1.26, p < 0.001) and InCWI vs. CG (16.3 ± 1.6 vs. 14 ± 1.26, p < 0.001), in the post 24h CnCWI vs. CG (16.3 ± 2.4 vs. 12.8 ± 1.12, p < 0.001) and InCWI vs. CG (14.92 ± 2 vs. 12.8 ± 1.12, p < 0.001). In the case of post 48h, results were CnCWI vs. CG (15.9 ± 2.6 vs. 12 ± 3.32, p < 0.001) and InCWI vs. CG (15.3 ± 2.62 vs. 12 ± 3.32, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Both CWI protocols are effective in reducing DOMS and improving perceptions of perceived recovery level all measurement post fatigue. Either the continuous or intermittent CWI protocol could be used as both have similar effects with regards to psychological indicators of recovery; individual preference may dictate which method is used.
