Key result
Ischaemic preconditioning did not enhance peak (difference 6 W; 95% CI -14 to 26; P=0.62) or average power output versus SHAM during repeated-sprint cycling in trained individuals.
Why the study?
Ischaemic preconditioning and muscle heat maintenance can individually enhance repeated-sprint performance through likely different mechanisms, but whether their combination further improves performance is unclear.
Does ischaemic preconditioning combined with muscle heating improve peak and average power output in trained cyclists?
Comparison
Ischaemic preconditioning vs SHAM, each combined with passive muscle heating or thermoneutral insulation
Authors
Loading...
Does not support ischaemic preconditioning for repeated-sprint performance; leaves open its utility in other modalities or populations.
RCT (n=11)
Does ischaemic preconditioning combined with muscle heating improve peak and average power output in trained cyclists?
Mean Difference: 6 (95% CI -14–26)
p-value: p=0.62
Neither ischaemic preconditioning, muscle heating, nor their combination enhances repeated sprint cycling performance in trained individuals.
Cocking et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Healthy (trained cyclists) (n=11). Ischaemic preconditioning (IPC) and/or passive muscle heating vs. SHAM (4 x 5-min at 20 mmHg) and/or thermoneutral insulation was evaluated on Peak and average power output (W) (MD 6 W, 95% CI -14-26, p=0.62). Ischaemic preconditioning did not enhance peak (difference 6 W; 95% CI -14 to 26; P=0.62) or average power output versus SHAM during repeated-sprint cycling in trained individuals.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: