Why the study?
To investigate the early and late ischemic preconditioning effects on trained cyclists' performance during an incremental cycling test until exhaustion.
Does ischemic preconditioning improve incremental cycling test performance in trained male cyclists?
Does ischemic preconditioning improve incremental cycling test performance in trained male cyclists?
Ischemic preconditioning provides a transient early improvement in cycling performance to exhaustion compared to baseline, but does not significantly differ from sham or control interventions.
IPC offers no advantage over sham for cycling performance; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Aims: To investigate the early and late ischemic preconditioning (IPC) effect on the trained cyclists' performance during incremental cycling test until exhaustion. Methods: Twenty-one male cyclists allocated to an IPC (2 x 5-min of blood flow occlusion at 50 mm Hg above systolic pressure followed + 5-min of deflation), SHAM (2 x 5-min at 20 mm Hg) or control (CON; no occlusion) interventions, performed three incremental cycling test (ICT) until exhaustion on separate days. The ICT were conducted pre interventions (baseline), 5-min and 24-h after interventions. The heart rate (HR) and power output (PO) were recorded during all ICT. Results: The IPC group increased ICT performance (4.4 4.0 %; effect size (ES) = 0.27) 5-min post intervention, accompanied by HR mean reduction, compared to baseline (p < 0.05). However, there were no changes in SHAM (2.2 4.2%; ES = 0.07) and CON (2.9 5.0%; ES = 0.06) groups. In 24-h post intervention, SHAM (0.2 4.7%; ES = 0.02) and CON (-1.0 1.6; ES = 0.03) maintained (p > 0.05) and IPC group decreased the performance (-4.6 3.6 %; ES = 0.16) compared to 5-min post intervention (p < 0.05), but all groups were similar to baseline (p > 0.05). There were no difference (p > 0.05) among groups for PO peak, HR and ICT performance in all moments (baseline, 5-min and 24-h post intervention).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arriel et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: