Cold-water or partial-body cryotherapy? Comparison of physiological responses and recovery following muscle damage.

The aim of this study is to compare (a) the physiological responses following cold-water immersion (CWI) and partial-body cryotherapy (PBC) and (b) the effects on recovery following a muscle-damaging protocol (5 × 20 drop jumps). Nineteen healthy males were randomly allocated into either a CWI (10°C for 10 minutes; n = 9) or a PBC (-60°C for 30 seconds, -135°C for 2 minutes; n = 10) group. The physiological variables (thigh muscle oxygen saturation [SmO2 ], cutaneous vascular conductance [CVC], mean arterial pressure [MAP], and local skin temperature) were assessed immediately prior and up to 60 minutes post-treatment (10-minutes intervals). The recovery variables (thigh muscle swelling, maximum voluntary contraction [MVC] of the right knee extensors, vertical jump performance [VJP], and delayed onset of muscle soreness [DOMS]) were measured immediately prior and up to 72 hours post-treatment (24-hours intervals). Compared to PBC values, CVC (at 30 minutes), SmO2 (at 40 minutes), and lower extremity skin temperature (thigh/shin at 60 minutes) were significantly reduced in the CWI group after the treatment (all P < .05). Only lower extremity skin temperature was significantly reduced in the PBC group directly post-treatment (all P < .05). MAP significantly increased in both groups after the treatments (both P < .05). DOMS did not differ between groups. MVC and VJP returned to baseline in both groups after 24 hours (P > .05). CWI had a greater impact on the physiological response compared to PBC. However, both treatments resulted in similar recovery profiles during a 72-hours follow-up period.

Evaluation and review of body fluids saliva, sweat and tear compared to biochemical hydration assessment markers within blood and urine.

Evaluating and testing hydration status is increasingly requested by rehabilitation, sport, military and performance-related activities. Besides commonly used biochemical hydration assessment markers within blood and urine, which have their advantages and limitations in collection and evaluating hydration status, there are other potential markers present within saliva, sweat or tear. This literature review focuses on body fluids saliva, sweat and tear compared to blood and urine regarding practicality and hydration status influenced by fluid restriction and/or physical activity. The selected articles included healthy subjects, biochemical hydration assessment markers and a well-described (de)hydration procedure. The included studies (n=16) revealed that the setting and the method of collecting respectively accessing body fluids are particularly important aspects to choose the optimal hydration marker. To obtain a sample of saliva is one of the simplest ways to collect body fluids. During exercise and heat exposures, saliva composition might be an effective index but seems to be highly variable. The collection of sweat is a more extensive and time-consuming technique making it more difficult to evaluate dehydration and to make a statement about the hydration status at a particular time. The collection procedure of tear fluid is easy to access and causes very little discomfort to the subject. Tear osmolarity increases with dehydration in parallel to alterations in plasma osmolality and urine-specific gravity. But at the individual level, its sensitivity has to be further determined.