LAUSR

PURPOSE This study tested the hypothesis of whether ischemic exercise preconditioning (IPC-Ex) elicits a better intense endurance exercise performance than traditional ischemic preconditioning at rest (IPC-rest) and a SHAM procedure. METHODS Twelve men (average V˙O2max ∼61 mL·kg-1·min-1) performed 3 trials on separate days, each consisting of either IPC-Ex (3 × 2-min cycling at ∼40 W with a bilateral-leg cuff pressure of ∼180 mm Hg), IPC-rest (4 × 5-min supine rest at 220 mm Hg), or SHAM (4 × 5-min supine rest at <10 mm Hg) followed by a standardized warm-up and a 4-minute maximal cycling performance test. Power output, blood lactate, potassium, pH, rating of perceived exertion, oxygen uptake, and gross efficiency were assessed. RESULTS Mean power during the performance test was higher in IPC-Ex versus IPC-rest (+4%; P = .002; 95% CI, +5 to 18 W). No difference was found between IPC-rest and SHAM (-2%; P = .10; 95% CI, -12 to 1 W) or between IPC-Ex and SHAM (+2%; P = .09; 95% CI, -1 to 13 W). The rating of perceived exertion increased following the IPC-procedure in IPC-Ex versus IPC-rest and SHAM (P < .001). During warm-up, IPC-Ex elevated blood pH versus IPC-rest and SHAM (P ≤ .027), with no trial differences for blood potassium (P > .09) or cycling efficiency (P ≥ .24). Eight subjects anticipated IPC-Ex to be best for their performance. Four subjects favored SHAM. CONCLUSIONS Performance in a 4-minute maximal test was better following IPC-Ex than IPC-rest and tended to be better than SHAM. The IPC procedures did not affect blood potassium, while pH was transiently elevated only by IPC-Ex. The performance-enhancing effect of IPC-Ex versus IPC-rest may be attributed to a placebo effect, improved pH regulation, and/or a change in the perception of effort.