BACKGROUND: The effects of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) versus a deceptive sham protocol on indirect markers of exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) after the application of individualized occlusion pressure were examined. The goal of using a sham protocol is to control for the potential effect of placebo. HYPOTHESIS: IPC would surpass the sham protocol in protecting against EIMD. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blinded, clinical trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1. METHODS: Thirty healthy young men were randomly assigned to an eccentric exercise for the knee extensor muscles preceded by IPC (4 × 5 minutes of individualized total occlusion pressure) or sham protocol (4 × 5 minutes using 20 mm Hg). Maximal voluntary isometric torque (MVIT), rate of torque development, muscle soreness, pressure pain threshold, knee range of motion, thigh girth, and creatine kinase (CK) activity were assessed before IPC or sham protocol and up to 72 hours after the eccentric EIMD. Affective valence and perceived exertion were also evaluated. RESULTS: MVIT decreased 17.1% in the IPC and 18.1% in the sham groups, with no differences between groups. Differences from baseline were observed in the sham group for muscle soreness at 48 hours (P < 0.001) and 72 hours (P = 0.02), and for CK activity at 72 hours (P = 0.04). Muscle soreness was reduced in the IPC group at 48 hours compared with the sham group (∆ = 15.8 mm; P = 0.008) but without achieving the minimal clinically important difference. IPC induced a smaller perceived exertion than the sham protocol (∆ = 1.1 a.u.; P = 0.02). The remaining outcomes were not statistically different in both groups. CONCLUSION: IPC does not surpass the sham protocol to protect against mild EIMD of the knee extensors muscles. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although IPC is a noninvasive, low-cost, and easy-to-administer intervention, the IPC effects can, in part, be explained by the placebo effect. In addition, individualized IPC promotes attenuation in perceived exertion during eccentric exercise.
BACKGROUND: The effects of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) versus a deceptive sham protocol on indirect markers of exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) after the application of individualized occlusion pressure were examined. The goal of using a sham protocol is to control for the potential effect of placebo. HYPOTHESIS: IPC would surpass the sham protocol in protecting against EIMD. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blinded, clinical trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1. METHODS: Thirty healthy young men were randomly assigned to an eccentric exercise for the knee extensor muscles preceded by IPC (4 × 5 minutes of individualized total occlusion pressure) or sham protocol (4 × 5 minutes using 20 mm Hg). Maximal voluntary isometric torque (MVIT), rate of torque development, muscle soreness, pressure pain threshold, knee range of motion, thigh girth, and creatine kinase (CK) activity were assessed before IPC or sham protocol and up to 72 hours after the eccentric EIMD. Affective valence and perceived exertion were also evaluated. RESULTS: MVIT decreased 17.1% in the IPC and 18.1% in the sham groups, with no differences between groups. Differences from baseline were observed in the sham group for muscle soreness at 48 hours (P < 0.001) and 72 hours (P = 0.02), and for CK activity at 72 hours (P = 0.04). Muscle soreness was reduced in the IPC group at 48 hours compared with the sham group (∆ = 15.8 mm; P = 0.008) but without achieving the minimal clinically important difference. IPC induced a smaller perceived exertion than the sham protocol (∆ = 1.1 a.u.; P = 0.02). The remaining outcomes were not statistically different in both groups. CONCLUSION: IPC does not surpass the sham protocol to protect against mild EIMD of the knee extensors muscles. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although IPC is a noninvasive, low-cost, and easy-to-administer intervention, the IPC effects can, in part, be explained by the placebo effect. In addition, individualized IPC promotes attenuation in perceived exertion during eccentric exercise.
Authors: André T Bezerra de Morais; Mikhail Santos Cerqueira; Rafael Moreira Sales; Taciano Rocha; Alberto Galvão de Moura Filho Journal: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Date: 2016-01-17 Impact factor: 2.273
Authors: Henry Brown; Martyn J Binnie; Brian Dawson; Nicola Bullock; Brendan R Scott; Peter Peeling Journal: Eur J Sport Sci Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 4.050
Authors: Robert W Spitz; Zachary W Bell; Vickie Wong; Ricardo B Viana; Raksha N Chatakondi; Takashi Abe; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 2.833
Authors: Vikram Sharma; Reuben Marsh; Brian Cunniffe; Marco Cardinale; Derek M Yellon; Sean M Davidson Journal: Cardiovasc Drugs Ther Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 3.727