Home > Journals > Medicina dello Sport > Past Issues > Medicina dello Sport 2019 September;72(3) > Medicina dello Sport 2019 September;72(3):317-30

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

PHYSIOLOGICAL AREA   

Medicina dello Sport 2019 September;72(3):317-30

DOI: 10.23736/S0025-7826.19.03508-7

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English, Italian

The effect of remote ischemic preconditioning at moderate- and high-intensity steady-state cycling exercise amongst amateur athletes

Maxime CARU 1, 2, 3, 4, François LALONDE 1, 2, 3, 5, Chantal DAIGLE 1, 2, Alain S. COMTOIS 5, Daniel CURNIER 1, 2, 3, 4

1 Laboratory of Pathophysiology of Exercise (LPEX), School of Kinesiology and Physical Activity Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada; 2 School of Kinesiology and Physical Activity Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada; 3 University Hospital of Montreal Research Center, Montreal, QC, Canada; 4 Sainte-Justine University Health Center and Research Center, Montreal, QC, Canada; 5 Department of Exercise Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, University of Quebec, Montreal, QC, Canada


PDF


BACKGROUND: Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is increasingly being adopted by athletes for its potential to enhance sports performance. However, the effect of a RIPC intervention on a constant oxygen uptake response during steady-state exercise (at moderate to high intensity) remains unknown. Thus, the aim of this study was to measure the effect of RIPC interventions applied on the right arm on the oxygen uptake response during a moderate and high-intensity steady-state cycling exercise.
METHODS: In a randomized crossover study, 15 subjects underwent two steady-state exercise tests at 75% and 115% of their determined gas exchange threshold (GET). Prior to the steady-state exercise test, they were randomized to either control (CTL) or RIPC intervention with four cycles of 5 minutes of ischemia followed by 5 minutes of reperfusion. Five minutes after the RIPC intervention the oxygen uptake response during the steady-state exercise test was analyzed.
RESULTS: Data analysis during steady-state exercise test, when compared to a CTL intervention, showed no significant difference. The A1 parameter in the mono-exponential model (75% of GET) was not significantly different between the CTL (1.2±0.3 L/min) and RIPC intervention (1.1±0.3 L/min). A similar analysis in the A2 parameter in the bi-exponential model (115% of GET) was performed between the CTL (0.4±0.2 L/min) and RIPC intervention (0.5±0.2 L/min). Secondary data analysis showed that at 75% of GET, τ1 was significantly faster (P<0.001) for RIPC intervention (27.2±4.6 s) than for CTL intervention (33.7±6.2 s) and at 115% of GET, τ1 for RIPC intervention (29.9±4.9 s) was also significantly quicker (P<0.01) than CTL intervention (33.5±4.1 s), but to a lesser extent.
CONCLUSIONS: RIPC intervention does not seem to have any direct effect on the oxidative metabolism when compared to a CTL intervention but could promote better oxygen uptake within the working muscle at steady state.


KEY WORDS: Ischemic preconditioning; Bicycling; Oxygen consumption; Anaerobic threshold; Athletic performance

top of page