Scott Cocking1,2, Mohammed Ihsan3, Helen Jones2, Clint Hansen4, N Timothy Cable5, Dick H J Thijssen2,6, Mathew G Wilson2,3,7. 1. Department of Sport Science, Aspire Academy, Doha, Qatar. 2. Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK. 3. Research and Scientific Support, Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar. 4. Department of Neurology, Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany. 5. School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 6. Department of Physiology, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands. 7. Institute of Sport, Exercise and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Abstract
Introduction: Both ischaemic preconditioning (IPC) and muscle heat maintenance can be effective in enhancing repeated-sprint performance (RSA) when applied individually, acting mechanisms of these interventions, however, likely differ. It is unclear if, when combined, these interventions could further improve RSA. Methods: Eleven trained cyclists undertook experimental test sessions, whereby IPC (4 × 5-min at 220 mmHg) and SHAM (4 × 5-min at 20 mmHg) were each performed on two separate visits, each combined with either passive muscle heating or thermoneutral insulation prior to an "all-out" repeated-sprint task (10 × 6-s sprints with 24-s recovery). Primary outcome measures were peak and average power output (W), whist secondary measures were muscular activation and muscular oxygenation, measured via Electromyography (EMG) and Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), respectively. Results: IPC did not enhance peak [6 (-14-26)W; P = 0.62] or average [12 (-7-31)W; P = 0.28] power output versus SHAM. Additionally, no performance benefits were observed when increasing muscle temperature in combination with IPC [5 (-14-19) watts; P = 0.67], or in isolation to IPC [9 (-9-28)W; P = 0.4] versus SHAM. No changes in EMG or microvascular changes were present (P > 0.05, respectively) between conditions. Conclusion: Overall, neither IPC, muscle heating, or a combination of both enhances RSA cycling performance in trained individuals.
Introduction: Both ischaemic preconditioning (IPC) and muscle heat maintenance can be effective in enhancing repeated-sprint performance (RSA) when applied individually, acting mechanisms of these interventions, however, likely differ. It is unclear if, when combined, these interventions could further improve RSA. Methods: Eleven trained cyclists undertook experimental test sessions, whereby IPC (4 × 5-min at 220 mmHg) and SHAM (4 × 5-min at 20 mmHg) were each performed on two separate visits, each combined with either passive muscle heating or thermoneutral insulation prior to an "all-out" repeated-sprint task (10 × 6-s sprints with 24-s recovery). Primary outcome measures were peak and average power output (W), whist secondary measures were muscular activation and muscular oxygenation, measured via Electromyography (EMG) and Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), respectively. Results: IPC did not enhance peak [6 (-14-26)W; P = 0.62] or average [12 (-7-31)W; P = 0.28] power output versus SHAM. Additionally, no performance benefits were observed when increasing muscle temperature in combination with IPC [5 (-14-19) watts; P = 0.67], or in isolation to IPC [9 (-9-28)W; P = 0.4] versus SHAM. No changes in EMG or microvascular changes were present (P > 0.05, respectively) between conditions. Conclusion: Overall, neither IPC, muscle heating, or a combination of both enhances RSA cycling performance in trained individuals.