## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Thermal**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Compression**} \\ \hline  & **Baseline** & **Post** & **Difference** & **Baseline** & **Post** & **Difference** & **Baseline** & **Post** & **Difference** \\ \hline Mean & & & & & & & & \\ Female (MJ) & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.07 \(\pm\) 0.02 V & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.06 \(\pm\) 0.01 \\ Height (m) & & & & & & & & \\ Mean Male & & & & & & & & \\ CMJ Height (m) & 0.41 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.03 V & 0.41 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.07 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.41 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.03 V \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} All data are M \(\pm\) SD, \({}^{\star}\) denotes difference between Baseline and Post, \(\Psi\) denotes difference from thermal garment.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Mean CMJ jump heights for each condition. There were no significant changes in knee valgus upon landing in any of the conditions tested. Although not directly comparable with the present investigation, as only sagittal plane kinematics were reported, [PERSON] et al. [19] showed no difference in knee flexion upon landing from a 0.6 m platform following cold water immersion. The lack of increased valgus following cold exposure could be a result of no changes to joint laxity as opposed to muscular contribution. Despite changes in the rate of force development in the knee flexors, [PERSON] et al. [11] found no changes in knee joint laxity after 30 min of ambient cooling at \(-5~{}^{\circ}\)C.  
In this study, there are several limitations that must be highlighted. Firstly, the data from this study were collected in 2013 and analysed in 2020. However, a recent review into compression garments in winter sports shows there have been no studies investigating how compression garments can change human performance in the cold. This study, despite its age, fills this gap in the literature. Next, muscle or skin temperature was not recorded, thus the level of muscle cooling attenuation afforded by each garment could not be ascertained. This decision was made on the premise that previous work showed significant cooling of the skin using the same cooling protocol and that the insertion of muscle temperature probes could have interfered with jumping and landing biomechanics [21]. Further, only jump height from a CMJ and knee valgus upon landing were analysed, whereas changes in the biomechanics of different body segments and during different activities with cold exposure have been reported [3; 19; 27]. Additionally, we did not control for BMI or diet, nor did we record the menstrual phase of our female participants. These factors are known to change perception of temperature and may have invalidated our temperature perception results. Future studies may wish to control these factors as well as investigate the performance of different next-to-skin garments in speed and agility activities and capture the biomechanics of different body segments after cold exposure.