Physiologic and perceptual responses to cold-shower cooling after exercise-induced hyperthermia

Cory L. Butts, Brendon P. McDermott, Brian J. Buening, Jeffrey A. Bonacci, Matthew S. Ganio, J. D. Adams, Matthew A. Tucker, Stavros A. Kavouras

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context: Exercise conducted in hot, humid environments increases the risk for exertional heat stroke (EHS). The current recommended treatment of EHS is cold-water immersion; however, limitations may require the use of alternative resources such as a cold shower (CS) or dousing with a hose to cool EHS patients. Objective: To investigate the cooling effectiveness of a CS after exercise-induced hyperthermia. Design: Randomized, crossover controlled study. Setting: Environmental chamber (temperature = 33.4 ° C ± 2.1 ° C; relative humidity = 27.1% ± 1.4%). Patients or Other Participants: Seventeen participants (10 male, 7 female; height=1.75 ± 0.07 m, body mass=70.4 ± 8.7 kg, body surface area = 1.85 ± 0.13 m2, age range = 19-35 years) volunteered. Intervention(s): On 2 occasions, participants completed matched-intensity volitional exercise on an ergometer or treadmill to elevate rectal temperature to ≥ 39°C or until participant fatigue prevented continuation (reaching at least 38.5°C). They were then either treated with a CS (20.8°C ± 0.80°C) or seated in the chamber (control [CON] condition) for 15 minutes. Main Outcome Measure(s): Rectal temperature, calculated cooling rate, heart rate, and perceptual measures (thermal sensation and perceived muscle pain). Results: The rectal temperature (P=.98), heart rate (P=.85), thermal sensation (P = .69), and muscle pain (P = .31) were not different during exercise for the CS and CON trials (P > .05). Overall, the cooling rate was faster during CS (0.07°C/min ± 0.03 ° C/min) than during CON (0.04 ° C/min ± 0.03 ° C/min; t16 = 2.77, P=.01). Heart-rate changes were greater during CS (45 ± 20 beats per minute) compared with CON (27 ± 10 beats per minute; t16=3.32, P=.004). Thermal sensation was reduced to a greater extent with CS than with CON (F3,45= 41.12, P < .001). Conclusions: Ahough the CS facilitated cooling rates faster than no treatment, clinicians should continue to advocate for accepted cooling modalities and use CS only if no other validated means of cooling are available.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)252-257
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Athletic Training
Volume51
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Induced Hyperthermia
Exercise
Heat Stroke
Temperature
Hot Temperature
Heart Rate
Myalgia
Hypesthesia
Body Surface Area
Immersion
Humidity
Cross-Over Studies
Fatigue
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

Keywords

  • Exertional heat illness
  • Heat stress
  • Water dousing
  • Whole-body cooling

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

Physiologic and perceptual responses to cold-shower cooling after exercise-induced hyperthermia. / Butts, Cory L.; McDermott, Brendon P.; Buening, Brian J.; Bonacci, Jeffrey A.; Ganio, Matthew S.; Adams, J. D.; Tucker, Matthew A.; Kavouras, Stavros A.

In: Journal of Athletic Training, Vol. 51, No. 3, 03.2016, p. 252-257.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Butts, CL, McDermott, BP, Buening, BJ, Bonacci, JA, Ganio, MS, Adams, JD, Tucker, MA & Kavouras, SA 2016, 'Physiologic and perceptual responses to cold-shower cooling after exercise-induced hyperthermia', Journal of Athletic Training, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 252-257. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-51.4.01
Butts, Cory L. ; McDermott, Brendon P. ; Buening, Brian J. ; Bonacci, Jeffrey A. ; Ganio, Matthew S. ; Adams, J. D. ; Tucker, Matthew A. ; Kavouras, Stavros A. / Physiologic and perceptual responses to cold-shower cooling after exercise-induced hyperthermia. In: Journal of Athletic Training. 2016 ; Vol. 51, No. 3. pp. 252-257.
@article{864ef2b0a67a4a64acb9061d1a8d00b1,
title = "Physiologic and perceptual responses to cold-shower cooling after exercise-induced hyperthermia",
abstract = "Context: Exercise conducted in hot, humid environments increases the risk for exertional heat stroke (EHS). The current recommended treatment of EHS is cold-water immersion; however, limitations may require the use of alternative resources such as a cold shower (CS) or dousing with a hose to cool EHS patients. Objective: To investigate the cooling effectiveness of a CS after exercise-induced hyperthermia. Design: Randomized, crossover controlled study. Setting: Environmental chamber (temperature = 33.4 ° C ± 2.1 ° C; relative humidity = 27.1{\%} ± 1.4{\%}). Patients or Other Participants: Seventeen participants (10 male, 7 female; height=1.75 ± 0.07 m, body mass=70.4 ± 8.7 kg, body surface area = 1.85 ± 0.13 m2, age range = 19-35 years) volunteered. Intervention(s): On 2 occasions, participants completed matched-intensity volitional exercise on an ergometer or treadmill to elevate rectal temperature to ≥ 39°C or until participant fatigue prevented continuation (reaching at least 38.5°C). They were then either treated with a CS (20.8°C ± 0.80°C) or seated in the chamber (control [CON] condition) for 15 minutes. Main Outcome Measure(s): Rectal temperature, calculated cooling rate, heart rate, and perceptual measures (thermal sensation and perceived muscle pain). Results: The rectal temperature (P=.98), heart rate (P=.85), thermal sensation (P = .69), and muscle pain (P = .31) were not different during exercise for the CS and CON trials (P > .05). Overall, the cooling rate was faster during CS (0.07°C/min ± 0.03 ° C/min) than during CON (0.04 ° C/min ± 0.03 ° C/min; t16 = 2.77, P=.01). Heart-rate changes were greater during CS (45 ± 20 beats per minute) compared with CON (27 ± 10 beats per minute; t16=3.32, P=.004). Thermal sensation was reduced to a greater extent with CS than with CON (F3,45= 41.12, P < .001). Conclusions: Ahough the CS facilitated cooling rates faster than no treatment, clinicians should continue to advocate for accepted cooling modalities and use CS only if no other validated means of cooling are available.",
keywords = "Exertional heat illness, Heat stress, Water dousing, Whole-body cooling",
author = "Butts, {Cory L.} and McDermott, {Brendon P.} and Buening, {Brian J.} and Bonacci, {Jeffrey A.} and Ganio, {Matthew S.} and Adams, {J. D.} and Tucker, {Matthew A.} and Kavouras, {Stavros A.}",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
doi = "10.4085/1062-6050-51.4.01",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "51",
pages = "252--257",
journal = "Journal of Athletic Training",
issn = "1062-6050",
publisher = "National Athletic Trainers' Association Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Physiologic and perceptual responses to cold-shower cooling after exercise-induced hyperthermia

AU - Butts, Cory L.

AU - McDermott, Brendon P.

AU - Buening, Brian J.

AU - Bonacci, Jeffrey A.

AU - Ganio, Matthew S.

AU - Adams, J. D.

AU - Tucker, Matthew A.

AU - Kavouras, Stavros A.

PY - 2016/3

Y1 - 2016/3

N2 - Context: Exercise conducted in hot, humid environments increases the risk for exertional heat stroke (EHS). The current recommended treatment of EHS is cold-water immersion; however, limitations may require the use of alternative resources such as a cold shower (CS) or dousing with a hose to cool EHS patients. Objective: To investigate the cooling effectiveness of a CS after exercise-induced hyperthermia. Design: Randomized, crossover controlled study. Setting: Environmental chamber (temperature = 33.4 ° C ± 2.1 ° C; relative humidity = 27.1% ± 1.4%). Patients or Other Participants: Seventeen participants (10 male, 7 female; height=1.75 ± 0.07 m, body mass=70.4 ± 8.7 kg, body surface area = 1.85 ± 0.13 m2, age range = 19-35 years) volunteered. Intervention(s): On 2 occasions, participants completed matched-intensity volitional exercise on an ergometer or treadmill to elevate rectal temperature to ≥ 39°C or until participant fatigue prevented continuation (reaching at least 38.5°C). They were then either treated with a CS (20.8°C ± 0.80°C) or seated in the chamber (control [CON] condition) for 15 minutes. Main Outcome Measure(s): Rectal temperature, calculated cooling rate, heart rate, and perceptual measures (thermal sensation and perceived muscle pain). Results: The rectal temperature (P=.98), heart rate (P=.85), thermal sensation (P = .69), and muscle pain (P = .31) were not different during exercise for the CS and CON trials (P > .05). Overall, the cooling rate was faster during CS (0.07°C/min ± 0.03 ° C/min) than during CON (0.04 ° C/min ± 0.03 ° C/min; t16 = 2.77, P=.01). Heart-rate changes were greater during CS (45 ± 20 beats per minute) compared with CON (27 ± 10 beats per minute; t16=3.32, P=.004). Thermal sensation was reduced to a greater extent with CS than with CON (F3,45= 41.12, P < .001). Conclusions: Ahough the CS facilitated cooling rates faster than no treatment, clinicians should continue to advocate for accepted cooling modalities and use CS only if no other validated means of cooling are available.

AB - Context: Exercise conducted in hot, humid environments increases the risk for exertional heat stroke (EHS). The current recommended treatment of EHS is cold-water immersion; however, limitations may require the use of alternative resources such as a cold shower (CS) or dousing with a hose to cool EHS patients. Objective: To investigate the cooling effectiveness of a CS after exercise-induced hyperthermia. Design: Randomized, crossover controlled study. Setting: Environmental chamber (temperature = 33.4 ° C ± 2.1 ° C; relative humidity = 27.1% ± 1.4%). Patients or Other Participants: Seventeen participants (10 male, 7 female; height=1.75 ± 0.07 m, body mass=70.4 ± 8.7 kg, body surface area = 1.85 ± 0.13 m2, age range = 19-35 years) volunteered. Intervention(s): On 2 occasions, participants completed matched-intensity volitional exercise on an ergometer or treadmill to elevate rectal temperature to ≥ 39°C or until participant fatigue prevented continuation (reaching at least 38.5°C). They were then either treated with a CS (20.8°C ± 0.80°C) or seated in the chamber (control [CON] condition) for 15 minutes. Main Outcome Measure(s): Rectal temperature, calculated cooling rate, heart rate, and perceptual measures (thermal sensation and perceived muscle pain). Results: The rectal temperature (P=.98), heart rate (P=.85), thermal sensation (P = .69), and muscle pain (P = .31) were not different during exercise for the CS and CON trials (P > .05). Overall, the cooling rate was faster during CS (0.07°C/min ± 0.03 ° C/min) than during CON (0.04 ° C/min ± 0.03 ° C/min; t16 = 2.77, P=.01). Heart-rate changes were greater during CS (45 ± 20 beats per minute) compared with CON (27 ± 10 beats per minute; t16=3.32, P=.004). Thermal sensation was reduced to a greater extent with CS than with CON (F3,45= 41.12, P < .001). Conclusions: Ahough the CS facilitated cooling rates faster than no treatment, clinicians should continue to advocate for accepted cooling modalities and use CS only if no other validated means of cooling are available.

KW - Exertional heat illness

KW - Heat stress

KW - Water dousing

KW - Whole-body cooling

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84964950002&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84964950002&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4085/1062-6050-51.4.01

DO - 10.4085/1062-6050-51.4.01

M3 - Article

C2 - 26942657

AN - SCOPUS:84964950002

VL - 51

SP - 252

EP - 257

JO - Journal of Athletic Training

JF - Journal of Athletic Training

SN - 1062-6050

IS - 3

ER -