Key result
Ischemic preconditioning increases acute maximal strength across upper- and lower-limb exercises versus control.
Why the study?
Ischemic preconditioning can increase muscle performance in resistance exercise, but the optimal occlusion pressure remains unknown.
Does acute ischemic preconditioning at high (220 mmHg) or low (20 mmHg) occlusion pressure improve upper and lower limb maximal strength (1 RM) and modulate heart rate variability compared with no intervention in recreationally trained men?
RCT (n=16)
Randomized crossover across three separate testing days
No
Does acute ischemic preconditioning at high (220 mmHg) or low (20 mmHg) occlusion pressure improve upper and lower limb maximal strength (1 RM) and modulate heart rate variability compared with no intervention in recreationally trained men?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Both low- and high-pressure ischemic preconditioning acutely enhance 1 RM strength; challenges assumption that full occlusion is required.
Background: The application of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) to resistance exercise has attracted some attention, owing to increases in muscle performance. However, there is still no consensus on the optimal occlusion pressure for this procedure. This study compared the acute effects of IPC with high and low pressure of occlusion on upper and lower limb maximal strength and heart rate variability in recreationally trained individuals. Methods: Sixteen recreationally trained men (25.3 ± 1.7 years; 78.4 ± 6.2 kg; 176.9 ± 5.4 cm; 25.1 ± 1.5 m2 kg−1) were thoroughly familiarized with one repetition maximum (1 RM) testing in the following exercises: bench press (BP), front latissimus pull-down (FLPD), and shoulder press (SP) for upper limbs, and leg press 45º (LP45), hack machine (HM), and Smith Squat (SS) for lower limbs. The 1 RM exercises were then randomly performed on three separate days: after a high pressure (220 mmHg, IPChigh) and a low pressure (20 mmHg, IPClow) IPC protocol and after no intervention (control, CON). Heart rate variability was also measured at rest, during and after the entire IPC protocol, and after the exercises. Results: Maximal strength was significantly (p < 0.05) higher in both IPChigh and IPClow compared with CON in all upper- and lower-limb exercises. There was no difference between the two experimental conditions. No significant differences were found in the comparison across the different experimental conditions for LFnu, HFnu, LF/HF ratio, and RMSSDms. Conclusions: IPC performed with both high and low pressures influenced heart rate variability, which may partly explain the maximal strength enhancement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Telles et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Healthy recreationally resistance-trained men (n=16). Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) at high pressure (220 mmHg) or low pressure (20 mmHg) vs. No intervention control (CON) before 1 RM testing was evaluated on One repetition maximum (1 RM) strength in six upper- and lower-limb exercises (bench press, front latissimus pull-down, shoulder press, leg press 45°, hack machine, Smith squat) and heart rate variability (HRV) (p=<0.05). Ischemic preconditioning at both high (220 mmHg) and low (20 mmHg) pressures significantly increased acute 1 RM maximal strength across all six upper- and lower-limb exercises compared with control (p < 0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: