Ischemic preconditioning boosts post-exercise but not resting cardiac vagal control in endurance runners.

PURPOSE: High cardiac vagal control in endurance athletes has been generally associated with adequate recovery from training and readiness to cope high-intensity training. A method that improves cardiac vagal control in endurance athletes could therefore be advantageous. Accordingly, we sought to test whether ischemic preconditioning (IPC) could enhance cardiac vagal control in endurance runners. METHODS: Fifteen subjects underwent IPC, sham ultrasound (SHAM) or control (CT), in random order. Subjects were informed both IPC and SHAM would be beneficial vs. CT (i.e., similar placebo induction), and IPC would be harmless despite ischemia sensations (i.e., nocebo avoidance). Resting cardiac vagal control was assessed via respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) and heart rate variability (HRV) indexes. Post-exercise cardiac vagal control was assessed via heart rate recovery [HR time constant decay (T30) and absolute HR decay (HRR30s)] during 30-s breaks of a discontinuous incremental test. Capillary blood samples were collected for lactate threshold identification. RESULTS: RSA and HRV were similar among interventions at pre- and post-intervention assessments. Lactate threshold occurred at 85 ± 4% of maximal effort. T30 was similar among interventions, but IPC increased HRR30s at 70% and 75% of maximal effort vs. SHAM and CT (70%: IPC = 31 ± 2 vs. SHAM = 26 ± 3 vs. CT = 26 ± 2 bpm, mean ± SEM, P < 0.01; 75%: IPC = 29 ± 2 vs. SHAM = 25 ± 2 vs. CT = 24 ± 2 bpm, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: IPC did not change resting cardiac vagal control, but boosted fast post-exercise cardiac vagal reactivation at exercise intensities below lactate threshold in endurance runners.

Effect of Ischemic Preconditioning on Endurance Performance Does Not Surpass Placebo.

PURPOSE: Recent studies have reported ischemic preconditioning (IPC) can acutely improve endurance exercise performance in athletes. However, placebo and nocebo effects have not been sufficiently controlled, and the effect on aerobic metabolism parameters that determine endurance performance (e.g., oxygen cost of running, lactate threshold, and maximal oxygen uptake [V˙O2max]) has been equivocal. Thus, we circumvented limitations from previous studies to test the effect of IPC on aerobic metabolism parameters and endurance performance in well-trained runners. METHODS: Eighteen runners (14 men/4 women) were submitted to three interventions, in random order: IPC; sham intervention (SHAM); and resting control (CT). Subjects were told both IPC and SHAM would improve performance compared to CT (i.e., similar placebo induction), and IPC would be harmless despite circulatory occlusion sensations (i.e., nocebo avoidance). Next, pulmonary ventilation and gas exchange, blood lactate concentration, and perceived effort were measured during a discontinuous incremental test on a treadmill. Then, a supramaximal test was used to verify the V˙O2max and assess endurance performance (i.e., time to exhaustion). RESULTS: Ventilation, oxygen uptake, carbon dioxide output, lactate concentration, and perceived effort were similar among IPC, SHAM, and CT throughout the discontinuous incremental test (P > 0.05). Oxygen cost of running, lactate threshold, and V˙O2max were also similar among interventions (P > 0.05). Time to exhaustion was longer after IPC (mean ± SEM, 165.34 ± 12.34 s) and SHAM (164.38 ± 11.71 s) than CT (143.98 ± 12.09 s; P = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively), but similar between IPC and SHAM (P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: IPC did not change aerobic metabolism parameters, whereas improved endurance performance. The IPC improvement, however, did not surpass the effect of a placebo intervention.