Results (cont’d)

Results

.

Abstract

Conclusions

Josué Flores: Cardiovascular Laboratory, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX; Sponsor: Judy R. Wilson, Ph.D.

PRE-COOLING INTERVENTIONS AND THE PRE-COOLING INTERVENTIONS AND THE PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS WITH INTERMITTENT-PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS WITH INTERMITTENT-SPRINTINGSPRINTING

BACKGROUND: Thermoregulation is stated as the potential of an organism to sustain a core body temperature within parameters, as external and internal temperatures are constantly fluctuating from day to day. Exercise, illnesses or intense external conditions are factors that cause elevated core body temperature that can disrupt cellular activity. Literature has shown that in order for the body to allow for physiological processes to occur efficiently it is necessary to be in a homeothermic state. The hypothalamus is the prime mechanism that regulates the core body temperature to maintain it within a normal resting range of 97.0-100.0 ˚F. Hence, the purpose of this study was to determine the effects of pre-cooling protocols on physiological responses when performing intermittent-sprints. METHODS: A total of 5 subjects of the UTA Kinesiology volunteered for this study (4 males and 1 female) with a mean age = 24 ± 3.4 yrs, height = 6 ft ± 0.18 in, and weight = 197 ± 35.7 lbs. Upon arrival and if instructed, subjects placed a pre-cooling intervention, which consisted of room air temperature (CNTRL) at 73 ˚F or cold pack (CP) at 12 ˚F around the base of the neck, initially for 11 minutes, followed by 4 minutes during warm-up. Warm-up consisted of static stretching of the quadriceps and hamstrings. Measures taken were that of body temperature (TEMP) by way of tympanic membrane, heart rate (HR), blood pressure (SBP), and rate of perceived exertion (RPE). Data were recorded at baseline and after warm-up, then following immediately after six 40 yard sprints separated by a 10 sec rest then again repeated at the 3 min., 6 min., and 9-minute intervals after the sprints. Each subject participated with both interventions assigned randomly over 2 study visits. Results for both test measures were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet as well as SPSS analytic software. A repeated measures ANOVA was administered to assess the data at baseline (1), immediate after exercise (2), and 9-minute interval (3), with an alpha level of significance of p<0.05. RESULTS: The measures of HR and pre-cooling interactions are as follows: (HRCNTRL1: 83.4 ± 13.5, HRCTRL2: 89.4 ± 22.3, HRCNTRL3: 82.6 ± 18.9, HRCP1: 82.6 ± 14.8, HRCP2: 85.0 ± 30.7, HRCP3: 82.4 ± 16.7). Measures for TEMP and pre-cooling are as follows: (TEMPCNTRL1: 97.1 ± .82, TEMPCNTRL2: 97.2 ± .78, TEMPCNTRL3: 97.1 ± .49, TEMPCP1: 97.0 ± .33, TEMPCP2: 96.9 ± .26, TEMPCP3: 97.2 ± .78). None of the variables were significantly different between the two conditions (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Thus, based on the data of this study only minimal changes were observed between the control and cold pack interventions. It can be noted that by using other type of pre-cooling instruments and external environment conditions might yield different results.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of pre-cooling protocols on physiological responses when performing intermittent-sprints.

Methods

A total of 5 subjects of the UTA Kinesiology volunteered for this study (4 males and 1 female) with a mean age = 24 ± 3.4 yrs, height = 6 ft ± 0.18 in, and weight = 197 ± 35.7 lbs. Upon arrival and if instructed, subjects placed a pre-cooling intervention, which consisted of room air temperature (CNTRL) at 73 ˚F or cold pack (CP) at 12 ˚F around the base of the neck, initially for 11 minutes, followed by 4 minutes during warm-up. Warm-up consisted of static stretching of the quadriceps and hamstrings. Measures taken were that of body temperature (TEMP) by way of tympanic membrane, heart rate (HR), blood pressure (SBP), and rate of perceived exertion (RPE). Data were recorded at baseline and after warm-up, then following immediately after six 40 yard sprints separated by a 10 sec rest then again repeated at the 3 min., 6 min., and 9-minute intervals after the sprints. Each subject participated with both interventions assigned randomly over 2 study visits. Results for both test measures were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet as well as SPSS analytic software. A repeated measures ANOVA was administered to assess the data at baseline (1), immediate after exercise (2), and 9-minute interval (3), with an alpha level of significance of p<0.05. 

The measures of HR and pre-cooling interactions are as follows: (HRCNTRL1: 83.4 ± 13.5, HRCTRL2: 89.4 ± 22.3, HRCNTRL3: 82.6 ± 18.9, HRCP1: 82.6 ± 14.8, HRCP2: 85.0 ± 30.7, HRCP3: 82.4 ± 16.7). Measures for TEMP and pre-cooling are as follows: (TEMPCNTRL1: 97.1 ± .82, TEMPCNTRL2: 97.2 ± .78, TEMPCNTRL3: 97.1 ± .49, TEMPCP1: 97.0 ± .33, TEMPCP2: 96.9 ± .26, TEMPCP3: 97.2 ± .78). None of the variables were significantly different between the two conditions (p > 0.05).

Thus, based on the data of this study only minimal changes were observed between the control and cold pack interventions. It can be noted that by using other type of pre-cooling instruments and external environment conditions might yield different results.