Efficacy of a Meta-Analysis-Recommended Immersion Protocol vs. Field-Practical Cold-Water Immersion Protocol for...

Kaji, R, Takeuchi, K, Okubo, S, and Yoshida, N. Efficacy of a meta-analysis-recommended immersion protocol vs. field-practical cold-water immersion protocol for performance recovery: A randomized crossover trial. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2026-We examined the effects of 2 cold-water immersion (CWI) protocols-15° C for 11 minutes and 10° C for 2.5 minutes-on performance recovery following exercise-induced fatigue. Fifteen male collegiate athletes completed 3 randomized crossover conditions with a 2-week washout: 15° C-11 minutes (evidence-based method), 10° C-2.5 minutes (field-practical method), and a seated-rest control. Outcomes included 20-m sprint time (T20), countermovement jump (CMJ), and Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 2 (YYIR2). The 20-m sprint time and CMJ were assessed before exercise (PreEx), immediately after exercise, immediately after the intervention, and at 1, 24, 48, and 72 hours postintervention, whereas YYIR2 was assessed at PreEx and at 72 hours postintervention. Physiological measures (tympanic temperature, skin temperatures, and heart rate) and perceptual measures (subjective fatigue and muscle soreness) were recorded. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The 10° C-2.5-minute protocol maintained T20 performance during the acute phase, whereas the 15° C-11-minute protocol facilitated later recovery. Countermovement jump performance transiently declined under both CWI conditions; however, a significant improvement at 72 hours occurred only with the 10° C-2.5-minute protocol. Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 2 performance did not differ between conditions. Thermal and cardiovascular responses varied by protocol and reflected recovery patterns. Subjective fatigue improved in both CWI conditions, whereas muscle soreness showed minimal differences. In conclusion, both evidence-based and field-practical CWI protocols enhanced recovery; however, they demonstrated distinct temporal profiles. The 10° C-2.5-minute protocol supported immediate restoration, whereas the 15° C-11-minute protocol promoted delayed recovery. For practical applications, protocol selection should align with sport-specific demands, recovery time, and performance objectives.