Active ischemic pre-conditioning does not additively improve short-term high-intensity cycling performance when combined with caffeine ingestion in trained young men.

We investigated the effect of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) with and without caffeine supplementation on mean power output (MPO) during a 4-min cycling time-trial (TT). In a double-blinded, randomized, crossover-design, 11 trained men performed a TT on 4 days separated by ∼1 week. One hour before TT, participants ingested either caffeine (3 mg kg bw-1) or placebo pills, after which femoral blood-flow was either restricted with occlusion cuffs inflated to ∼180 mmHg (IPC), or sham-restricted (0-10 mmHg; Sham) during 3 × 2-min low-intensity cycling (10% of incremental peak power output). Then, participants performed a standardized warm-up followed by the TT. Plasma lactate and K+ concentrations and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured throughout trials. TT MPO was 382 ± 17 W in Placebo + Sham and not different from Placebo + IPC (-1 W; 95% CI: -9 to 7; p = 0.848; d: 0.06), whereas MPO was higher with Caffeine + Sham (+6W; 95% CI: -2 to 14; p = 0.115; d: 0.49) and Caffeine + IPC (+8 W; 95% CI: 2-13; p = 0.019; d: 0.79) versus Placebo + Sham. MPO differences were attributed to caffeine (caffeine main-effect: +7 W; 95% CI: 2-13; p = 0.015; d: 0.54. IPC main-effect: 0 W; 95% CI: -6 to 7; p = 0.891; d: 0.03; caffeine × IPC interaction-effect: p = 0.580; d: 0.17). TT RPE and plasma variables were not different between treatments. In conlcusion, IPC with co-ingestion of placebo does not improve short-term high-intensity performance in trained men versus a double-placebo control (Placebo + Sham) and does not additively enhance performance with caffeine. These data do not support IPC as a useful strategy for athletes prior to competition but confirms caffeine's performance-enhancing effect.

Active Relative to Passive Ischemic Preconditioning Enhances Intense Endurance Performance in Well-Trained Men.

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.