Fig 1.
Overview of experimental design and measurement timeline.
Table 1.
Characteristics of participants (n = 64, M ± SD, F:M = 8:8 for each).
Table 2.
Changes in performance and physiological indicators before and after fatigue protocol.
Table 3.
PT across time points for each group (n = 16, F:M = 8:8 for each, Nm·kg ⁻ ¹).
Fig 2.
The effect of temperature and time on mean power in the CON group and PCM – treated groups.
A. Mean power (W) in the CON group (control) and PCM – treated groups under 5°C, 10°C, and 15°C conditions at Imm – fatigue, Imm – PCM, and Post60 – PCM time points. Data are presented as mean ± SD (n = 16). Statistical significance was determined by two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post – hoc test: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 vs. CON group at the same time point. B. Mean power (W) in the CON group and PCM – treated groups under different temperature conditions at Imm – fatigue, Imm – PCM, and Post60 – PCM time points. Data are presented as mean ± SD (n = 16). Statistical significance was determined by two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post – hoc test: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Fig 3.
Rate of Force Development (RFD) responses across time points and intervention groups.
A. RFD values for each group (CON, 15°C, 10°C, 5°C) measured at Imm-fatigue, Imm-PCM, and Post60-PCM. A significant main effect of time and time × group interaction was observed. All PCM conditions (5°C, 10°C, 15°C) demonstrated significantly higher RFD at Imm-PCM compared to CON. B. Group-wise comparisons illustrating that RFD was significantly elevated in the 5°C, 10°C, and 15°C PCM groups relative to CON at Imm-PCM. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Table 4.
CMJ across time points for each group (n = 16, F:M = 8:8 for each, cm).
Fig 4.
Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) across groups and time points.
A. RPE responses at Imm-fatigue, Imm-PCM, and Post60-PCM across the control (CON), 15°C, 10°C, and 5°C PCM groups. Significant main effects were observed for group, time, and the group × time interaction. PCM groups demonstrated lower perceived exertion than the control at both Imm-PCM and Post60-PCM. B. Direct comparison of RPE values at Imm-fatigue, Imm-PCM, and Post60-PCM across all groups. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 5.
MER across time points for each group (n = 16, F:M = 8:8 for each).
Table 6.
VL across time points for each group (n = 16, F:M = 8:8 for each, N·m ⁻ ¹).
Table 7.
RF across time points for each group (n = 16, F:M = 8:8 for each, N·m ⁻ ¹).