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.

Ischemic Preconditioning and Repeated Sprint Swimming: A Placebo and Nocebo Study.

PURPOSE: Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) has been shown to improve performance of exercises lasting 10-90 s (anaerobic) and more than 90 s (aerobic). However, its effect on repeated sprint performance has been controversial, placebo effect has not been adequately controlled, and nocebo effect has not been avoided. Thus, the IPC effect on repeated sprint performance was investigated using a swimming task and controlling placebo/nocebo effects. METHODS: Short-distance university swimmers were randomized to two groups. One group (n = 15, 24 ± 1 yr [mean ± SEM]) was exposed to IPC (ischemia cycles lasted 5 min) and control (CT) (no ischemia); another (n = 15, 24 ± 1 yr) to a placebo intervention (SHAM) (ischemia cycles lasted 1 min) and CT. Seven subjects crossed over groups. Subjects were informed IPC and SHAM would improve performance compared with CT and would be harmless despite circulatory occlusion sensations. The swimming task consisted of six 50-m all-out efforts repeated every 3 min. RESULTS: IPC, in contrast with SHAM, reduced worst sprint time (IPC, 35.21 ± 0.73 vs CT, 36.53 ± 0.72 s; P = 0.04) and total sprints time (IPC, 203.7 ± 4.60 vs CT, 206.03 ± 4.57 s; P = 0.02), moreover augmented swimming velocity (IPC, 1.45 ± 0.03 vs CT, 1.44 ± 0.03 m·s; P = 0.049). Six of seven subjects who crossed over groups reduced total sprints time with IPC versus SHAM (delta = -3.95 ± 1.49 s, P = 0.09). Both IPC and SHAM did not change blood lactate concentration (P = 0.20) and perceived effort (P = 0.22). CONCLUSION: IPC enhanced repeated sprint swimming performance in university swimmers, whereas a placebo intervention did not.