The ischemic preconditioning (IPC), involves brief cycles of ischemia and reperfusion, has been reported to improve exercise performance through increases in vasodilation, blood flow, muscle deoxygenation, and buffer capacity. These mechanisms may also benefit for physiological recovery from intense exercise. Purpose: To investigate the acute effects of IPC on exercise performance recovery and physiological recovery after intense exercise in athletes. Methods: Fifteen collegiate male basketball players (age 21 ± 2 years; height 1.89 ± 0.07 m; body mass 88 ± 13 kg) were recruited in this study. After a familiarization trial, all subjects performed IPC (3 × 5 minutes intervals at 220 mm Hg bilateral leg occlusion), SHAM (3 × 5 minutes intervals at 20 mm Hg), or passive recovery (CON) after 2 sets of 30-second Wingate test in a randomized crossover design, separated by at least 4 days. The isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) tests were conducted before 2 Wingate test and immediately after treatment. Subjects were also asked to perform one Wingate test after treatment to assess the exercise performance recovery. The muscular oxygenation of right quadriceps was measured by near-infrared spectroscopy at each trial. The blood lactate concentrations and pH values were evaluated at each trial. The visual analog scale (VAS) and perceived recovery status (PRS) were measured every 10-minute during treatment. Results: The tissue saturation index during ischemia in IPC was significantly lower than those in SHAM and CON (p < 0.001). The average deoxyhemoglobin concentration during treatment in IPC was significantly higher than those in SHAM and CON (IPC vs. SHAM vs. CON, 10.1 ± 3.7 vs. 0.6 ± 1.7 vs. 0.7 ± 1.3 µM, p < 0.001). However, no significant interaction effects in peak and mean force, and maximal rate of force development were found during IMTP test among treatments. There were also no significant differences in peak and mean power outputs, and total work (IPC vs. SHAM vs. CON, 19.7 ± 2.8 vs. 20.2 ± 3.0 vs. 19.9 ± 2.8 kJ, p > 0.05) at Wingate test after treatment. No significant interaction effects in blood lactate and pH levels were found among treatments. The average VAS scores during treatment in IPC was significantly higher than those in SHAM and CON (IPC vs. SHAM vs. CON, 2.41 ± 2.53 vs. 1.31 ± 1.94 vs. 1.33 ± 1.50, p < 0.01). The average PRS scores during treatment in IPC was significantly lower than those in SHAM and CON (IPC vs. SHAM vs. CON, 7.72 ± 1.77 vs. 8.42 ± 1.69 vs. 8.38 ± 1.08, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Neither explosive nor anaerobic performance could be recovered by IPC administered after intense exercise. The slight discomfort induced by arterial occlusion might decrease the possible benefit of physiological recovery. Practical Applications: The implementation of blood flow occlusion with high pressure could not facilitate the exercise performance recovery from intense exercise in well-trained athletes. Although the IPC could increase oxygen extraction of affected limbs, further studies are needed to clarify the effects of different manipulation variables of IPC on post-exercise recovery.
© Copyright 2021 The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. National Strength & Conditioning Association. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.