Key result
Ischemic preconditioning fails to alter muscle sympathetic nerve activity or hemodynamics versus sham during exercise.
Why the study?
Does ischemic preconditioning alter muscle sympathetic nerve activity and hemodynamic responses during static handgrip and metaboreflex activation in young healthy men?
RCT (n=37)
Single-blind
Online random sequence generator (random.org)
No
Does ischemic preconditioning alter muscle sympathetic nerve activity and hemodynamic responses during static handgrip and metaboreflex activation in young healthy men?
Ischemic preconditioning does not attenuate central sympathetic outflow or hemodynamic responses during muscle metaboreflex activation in healthy young men.
Questions utility of ischemic preconditioning for sympathetic modulation during exercise; extends null results to metaboreflex activation in healthy men.
Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) has been hypothesized to elicit ergogenic effects by reducing feedback from metabolically sensitive group III/IV muscle afferents during exercise. If so, reflex efferent neural outflow should be attenuated. We investigated the effects of IPC on muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) during static handgrip (SHG) and used post-exercise circulatory occlusion (PECO) to isolate for the muscle metaboreflex. Thirty-seven healthy men (age: 24 ± 5 years [mean ± SD]) were randomized to receive sham (n = 16) or IPC (n = 21) interventions. Blood pressure, heart rate, and MSNA (microneurography; sham n = 11 and IPC n = 18) were collected at rest and during 2 min of SHG (30% maximal voluntary contraction) and 3 min of PECO before (PRE) and after (POST) sham or IPC treatment (3 × 5 min 20 mmHg or 200 mmHg unilateral upper arm cuff inflation). Resting mean arterial pressure was higher following sham (79 ± 7 vs. 83 ± 6 mmHg, P < 0.01) but not IPC (81 ± 6 vs. 82 ± 6 mmHg, P > 0.05), while resting MSNA burst frequency was unchanged (P > 0.05) with sham (18 ± 7 vs. 19 ± 9 bursts/min) or IPC (17 ± 7 vs. 19 ± 7 bursts/min). Mean arterial pressure, heart rate, stroke volume, cardiac output, and total vascular conductance responses during SHG and PECO were comparable PRE and POST following sham and IPC (All P > 0.05). Similarly, MSNA burst frequency, burst incidence, and total MSNA responses during SHG and PECO were comparable PRE and POST with sham and IPC (All P > 0.05). These findings demonstrate that IPC does not reduce hemodynamic responses or central sympathetic outflow directed toward the skeletal muscle during activation of the muscle metaboreflex using static exercise or subsequent PECO.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Incognito et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Healthy men undergoing static handgrip exercise and post-exercise circulatory occlusion (n=37). Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) vs. Sham (3 x 5 min cuff inflation at 20 mmHg separated by 5 min deflation) was evaluated on Muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) burst frequency response during static handgrip (SHG) and post-exercise circulatory occlusion (PECO) (p=>0.05). Ischemic preconditioning did not alter muscle sympathetic nerve activity burst frequency or hemodynamic responses during static handgrip or post-exercise circulatory occlusion versus sham (P > 0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: