Authors :
Dr. Sunayana Ghosh Dostider; Dr. Swarup Ghosh; Dr. Sourav Mitra
Volume/Issue :
ICVDRS 2026
Google Scholar :
https://tinyurl.com/ee4za2xc
Scribd :
https://tinyurl.com/wydjcf9k
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jun1588
Abstract :
Background:
Post-exercise recovery is a crucial component of athletic training, aiming to minimize fatigue, reduce delayed onset
muscle soreness (DOMS), and restore optimal performance. Among various recovery modalities, cryotherapy and contrast
bath therapy are widely used due to their accessibility and physiological effects. Cryotherapy, commonly applied as coldwater immersion or cold-air exposure, reduces tissue temperature, pain perception, and inflammatory responses. Contrast
bath therapy alternates between hot and cold water immersion, theoretically enhancing circulation through vasodilation
and vasoconstriction cycles, facilitating metabolic waste removal.
Objective:
This review aims to critically compare the effectiveness of cryotherapy and contrast bath therapy in promoting
recovery following sports and exercise, focusing on their impact on DOMS, muscle function, inflammation, and subjective
recovery.
Methods:
A narrative review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted using electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus,
and Google Scholar. Studies evaluating the physiological, functional, and perceptual outcomes of cryotherapy and contrast
bath interventions in athletic or physically active populations were included. Data were synthesized qualitatively.
Results:
Cryotherapy, particularly cold-water immersion, demonstrates moderate evidence for reducing DOMS, perceived
fatigue, and pain, with short-term benefits on subjective recovery. However, prolonged or frequent use may blunt longterm muscular adaptations. Evidence supporting contrast bath therapy remains inconsistent, with limited superiority over
passive recovery or cold immersion alone. Variations in protocols, temperatures, and exposure durations contribute to
conflicting findings.
Conclusion:
Cryotherapy appears more consistently effective than contrast bath therapy for short-term sports recovery.
Nonetheless, both modalities require standardized application guidelines and further high-quality randomized trials to
determine optimal protocols and long-term implications.
Keywords :
Cryotherapy; Contrast Bath; Sports Recovery; Cold-Water Immersion; Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness.
Background:
Post-exercise recovery is a crucial component of athletic training, aiming to minimize fatigue, reduce delayed onset
muscle soreness (DOMS), and restore optimal performance. Among various recovery modalities, cryotherapy and contrast
bath therapy are widely used due to their accessibility and physiological effects. Cryotherapy, commonly applied as coldwater immersion or cold-air exposure, reduces tissue temperature, pain perception, and inflammatory responses. Contrast
bath therapy alternates between hot and cold water immersion, theoretically enhancing circulation through vasodilation
and vasoconstriction cycles, facilitating metabolic waste removal.
Objective:
This review aims to critically compare the effectiveness of cryotherapy and contrast bath therapy in promoting
recovery following sports and exercise, focusing on their impact on DOMS, muscle function, inflammation, and subjective
recovery.
Methods:
A narrative review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted using electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus,
and Google Scholar. Studies evaluating the physiological, functional, and perceptual outcomes of cryotherapy and contrast
bath interventions in athletic or physically active populations were included. Data were synthesized qualitatively.
Results:
Cryotherapy, particularly cold-water immersion, demonstrates moderate evidence for reducing DOMS, perceived
fatigue, and pain, with short-term benefits on subjective recovery. However, prolonged or frequent use may blunt longterm muscular adaptations. Evidence supporting contrast bath therapy remains inconsistent, with limited superiority over
passive recovery or cold immersion alone. Variations in protocols, temperatures, and exposure durations contribute to
conflicting findings.
Conclusion:
Cryotherapy appears more consistently effective than contrast bath therapy for short-term sports recovery.
Nonetheless, both modalities require standardized application guidelines and further high-quality randomized trials to
determine optimal protocols and long-term implications.
Keywords :
Cryotherapy; Contrast Bath; Sports Recovery; Cold-Water Immersion; Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness.
