The Impact of Different Ischemic Preconditioning Pressures on Pain Sensitivity and Resistance Exercise Performance

Kataoka, R, Song, JS, Yamada, Y, Hammert, WB, Seffrin, A, Spitz, RW, Wong, V, Kang, A, and Loenneke, JP. The impact of different ischemic preconditioning pressures on pain sensitivity and resistance exercise performance. J Strength Cond Res 38(5): 864-872, 2024-To determine (a) the impact of ischemic preconditioning pressures (applied as a % of arterial occlusion pressure [AOP]) on pressure pain threshold (PPT) and resistance exercise performance and (b) whether changes in performance could be explained by changes in PPT. Subjects ( n = 39) completed 4 protocols in a randomized order: (a) ischemic preconditioning (IPC) at 110% AOP (IPC 110%), (b) IPC at 150% AOP (IPC 150%), (c) IPC at 10% AOP (Sham), and (d) time-matched control (CON). Each protocol included 4 cycles of 5 minutes of occlusion followed by 5 minutes of reperfusion. Pressure pain threshold was taken before and after. Discomfort ratings were given at the end of each cycle. Every visit finished with 2 sets of 75-second maximal isokinetic unilateral elbow flexion or extension. Overall, IPC 110% and IPC 150% resulted in similar increases in PPT relative to CON [110%: difference of 0.36 (0.18, 0.54) kg·m -2 ; 150%: difference of 0.377 (0.15, 0.59) kg·m -2 ] and Sham. Both resulted in greater discomfort than Sham and CON, with IPC 150% inducing greater discomfort than IPC 110% (BF 10 : 14.74). There were no differences between the conditions for total work (BF 10 : 0.23), peak torque (BF 10 : 0.035), or average power (BF 10 : 0.159). We did not find evidence that PPT mediated performance. We did not detect changes in performance with 2 different relative pressures greater than AOP. Our mean applied pressures were lower than those used previously. There might be a minimal level of pressure (e.g., >150% of AOP) that is required to induce ergogenic effects of ischemic preconditioning.