Purpose: This study investigated the effects of ischemic conditioning on recovery following high-intensity complex training. Methods: The study was a randomized controlled trial. Thirty-six participants with at least 1 year of strength-training experience were randomized into 4 groups: control (CON, n = 9), acute ischemic preconditioning (A-IPC, n = 8), repeated ischemic preconditioning (R-IPC, n = 11), and postexercise ischemic conditioning (PEIC, n = 8). CON received no additional intervention. A-IPC and PEIC underwent ischemic conditioning 1 hour before and after training, respectively. R-IPC performed ischemic conditioning for 3 consecutive days, with training conducted 1 hour after the final session. Blood samples and muscle strength were accessed pretraining and at 6, 24, 48, and 72 hours posttraining. Results: At 6 hours and 24 hours posttraining, R-IPC showed significantly higher countermovement-jump heights (6 h: 45.4 [4.6] cm vs 36.7 [7.0], P = .024; 24 h: 44.4 [3.2] vs 33.8 [7.2] cm, P = .012) and right quadriceps peak torque (6 h: 204.6 [32.8] N vs 145.3 [39.1] N, P = .01; 24 h: 191.2 [48.6] N vs 134.0 [36.6] N, P = .046) versus CON. At 24 hours posttraining, R-IPC had lower CRP than CON (P = .024). R-IPC, A-IPC, and PEIC had higher nitric oxide levels than CON (P = .003, P = .004, P < .001). At 48 hours posttraining, R-IPC, A-IPC, and PEIC exhibited lower CRP levels than CON (P < .001, P < .001, P = .002), R-IPC had lower CRP levels than A-IPC (P = .002). Conclusions: R-IPC promoted recovery of explosive power and strength while also reducing inflammation and increasing nitric oxide levels. Both A-IPC and PEIC increased nitric oxide levels and reduced inflammation but did not enhance strength recovery.
© Copyright 2025 International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.