1Sport Research Center, Faculty of Earth Sciences and Spatial Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Torun, Poland
2Medical Department, Wojciech Korfanty Upper Silesian Academy, Katowice, Poland
3Medical Center Provita, Żory, Poland
4Institute of Physical Culture Sciences, Faculty of Physical Culture and Health, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland
5Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport, Gdańsk, Poland
6Applied Research Institute (i2A), Polytechnic University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
7Sport Physical Activity and Health Research & Innovation Center, Coimbra, Portugal
8Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Collegium Medicum, Jan Dlugosz University, Czestochowa, Poland
9Department of Health Sciences and Physiotherapy, Collegium Medicum, Jan Dlugosz University, Czestochowa, Poland
Magdalena Hagner-Derengowska✉ Sport Research Center, Faculty of Earth Sciences and Spatial Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Torun, Poland
Email: magdalenahagnerderengowska@proton.me
Received: 11-05-2026 -- Accepted: 07-07-2026
Published (online): 01-09-2026
| ABSTRACT |
Contrast heat-cold showering is popular for recovery, but multisystem evidence and persistence after cessation remain unclear. To evaluate whether a 4-week post-training contrast heat-cold shower intervention produces an integrated recovery profile across four domains (autonomic, endocrine, perceptual, and microvascular) rather than testing a single isolated physiological pathway, across baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1), and 2-week wash-out (T2). Sixty combat-sport athletes were randomized to contrast showers (10 min alternating warm 38-40°C and cold 13-15°C) or an active thermoneutral-shower comparator (10 min, 32-34°C) after training for 4 weeks. Primary analyses were per-protocol (≥ 75% compliance; n = 57), with intention-to-treat sensitivity analyses. Outcomes were Total Quality Recovery (TQR), morning salivary cortisol (two mornings averaged), resting HRV, and post-occlusive reactive hyperemia (PORH). From T0 to T1, favorable between-group changes were observed for resting HR (ΔΔ -2.10 bpm, 95% CI -2.24 to -1.96; g -0.65; p < 0.001), lnRMSSD (ΔΔ 0.123 log units, 95% CI 0.108 to 0.137; g 0.74; p < 0.001), with similar T1 effects for RMSSD and SDNN, and TQR (ΔΔ 0.61 points, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.95; g 0.80; p < 0.001). These T1 autonomic and perceptual changes were not maintained at T2 (all T2-T0 ΔΔ p > 0.05). Cortisol and PORH-derived outcomes showed no statistically clear between-group differences at T1 or T2 (all p > 0.05). Compared with thermoneutral showering, 4 weeks of post-training contrast heat-cold showering produced short-term favorable between-group changes in autonomic regulation and perceived recovery, but not in morning cortisol or PORH-derived microvascular reactivity. These effects were not maintained after wash-out; therefore, causal attribution to the shower intervention alone and claims of persistent physiological adaptation should be made cautiously. Trial registration: ISRCTN15418049. |