Ischemia-Reperfusion Intervention: From Enhancements in Exercise Performance to Accelerated Performance Recovery-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

It has been demonstrated that brief cycles of ischemia followed by reperfusion (IR) applied before exercise can improve performance and, IR intervention, applied immediately after exercise (post-exercise ischemic conditioning-PEIC) exerts a potential ergogenic effect to accelerate recovery. Thus, the purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to identify the effects of PEIC on exercise performance, recovery and the responses of associated physiological parameters, such as creatine kinase, perceived recovery and muscle soreness, over 24 h after its application. From 3281 studies, six involving 106 subjects fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Compared to sham (cuff administration with low pressure) and control interventions (no cuff administration), PEIC led to faster performance recovery (p = 0.004; ES = -0.49) and lower increase in creatine kinase (p < 0.001; effect size (ES) = -0.74) and muscle soreness (p < 0.001; ES = -0.88) over 24 h. The effectiveness of this intervention is more pronounced in subjects with low/moderate fitness level and at least a total time of 10 min of ischemia (e.g., two cycles of 5 min) is necessary to promote positive effects.

Ischemic preconditioning delays the time of exhaustion in cycling performance during the early but not in the late phase

Aims: To investigate the early and late ischemic preconditioning (IPC) effect on the trained cyclists' performance during incremental cycling test until exhaustion. Methods: Twenty-one male cyclists allocated to an IPC (2 x 5-min of blood flow occlusion at 50 mm Hg above systolic pressure followed + 5-min of deflation), SHAM (2 x 5-min at 20 mm Hg) or control (CON; no occlusion) interventions, performed three incremental cycling test (ICT) until exhaustion on separate days. The ICT were conducted pre interventions (baseline), 5-min and 24-h after interventions. The heart rate (HR) and power output (PO) were recorded during all ICT. Results: The IPC group increased ICT performance (4.4 ± 4.0 %; effect size (ES) = 0.27) 5-min post intervention, accompanied by HR mean reduction, compared to baseline (p < 0.05). However, there were no changes in SHAM (2.2 ± 4.2%; ES = 0.07) and CON (2.9 ± 5.0%; ES = 0.06) groups. In 24-h post intervention, SHAM (0.2 ± 4.7%; ES = 0.02) and CON (-1.0 ±1.6; ES = 0.03) maintained (p > 0.05) and IPC group decreased the performance (-4.6 ± 3.6 %; ES = 0.16) compared to 5-min post intervention (p < 0.05), but all groups were similar to baseline (p > 0.05). There were no difference (p > 0.05) among groups for PO peak, HR and ICT performance in all moments (baseline, 5-min and 24-h post intervention). Conclusion: The IPC increases early but not late incremental cycling test performance.(AU)

O uso de barra ou haltere não altera a ativação muscular durante o exercício pullover / The use of barbell or dumbbell does not affect muscle activation during pullover exercise / El uso de la barra o de pesas no altera la activación muscular durante el ejercicio de pullover

RESUMO Introdução: Inúmeras variações de exercícios têm sido aplicadas nas rotinas de treinamento de força, com o objetivo de otimizar os ganhos de força e hipertrofia e, entre os exercícios usados, podemos destacar o pullover. Objetivo: Comparar a atividade eletromiográfica da parte clavicular do músculo peitoral maior (PMC), parte esternocostal do peitoral maior (PME), cabeça longa do tríceps braquial (TBL), do deltoide anterior (DA), deltoide posterior (DP), latíssimo do dorso (LD) e serrátil anterior (SA) entre os exercícios pullover barra (PB) e pullover haltere (PH). Método: Participaram do estudo 11 homens treinados (idade, 24,50 ± 4,34 anos; percentual de gordura = 13,63 ± 1,94; estatura = 1,76 ± 0,04 m; massa corporal total = 73,12 ± 6,10 kg). A primeira fase do estudo consistiu em avaliações antropométricas e teste e re-teste de 10 repetições máximas (RM). A segunda fase do estudo foi composta pela coleta dos sinais eletromiográficos nos exercícios propostos. Para tal, foi realizada uma série com cargas ajustadas a 90% de 10 RM. Para verificar as diferenças na ativação dos respectivos músculos estudados entre os exercícios PB e PH adotou-se o teste t de Student pareado para amostras dependentes. Resultados: Não foram observadas mudanças na ativação de nenhum dos músculos analisados nos exercícios propostos (P > 0,05). Conclusão: Concluiu-se que a realização do exercício pullover com barra ou com o haltere não altera a participação/ativação dos músculos envolvidos.

ABSTRACT Introduction: Numerous variations of exercises have been applied in strength training routines, in order to optimize strength gains and hypertrophy, and among the used exercises, we can highlight the pullover. Objective: To compare the electromyographic activity of the clavicular portion of the pectoralis major (PMC), sternocostal head of the pectoralis major (PMS), long head of triceps brachii (TBL), anterior deltoid (AD), posterior deltoid (PD), latissimus dorsi (LD) and serratus anterior (SA) between the barbell pullover (BP) exercise and the dumbbell pullover (DP) exercise. Method: Eleven trained men (age, 24.50 ± 4.34 years; fat percentage = 13.63 ± 1.94, height = 1.76 ± 0.04 m, total body mass = 73.12 ± 6.10 kg). The first phase of the study consisted of anthropometric assessments and test and re-test of 10 maximal repetitions (MR). The second phase of the study consisted of the collection of electromyographic signals in the proposed exercises. For this, a series with loads adjusted to 90% of 10 MR was performed. To verify the differences in the activation of the respective muscles studied between the BP and DP exercises the paired student's T-test was used for dependent samples. Results: No changes were observed in the activation of any of the muscles analyzed in the proposed exercises (P>0.05). Conclusion: It was concluded that performing the pullover exercise with barbell or with dumbbell does not change the participation/activation of the involved muscles.

RESUMEN Introducción: Numerosas variaciones de ejercicios se han aplicado en las rutinas de entrenamiento de fuerza con el objetivo de optimizar las ganancias de fuerza e hipertrofia y, entre los ejercicios utilizados, podemos destacar el pullover. Objetivo: Comparar la actividad electromiográfica de la porción clavicular del músculo pectoral mayor (PMC), porción esternocostal del pectoral mayor (PME), cabeza larga del tríceps braquial (TBL), deltoides anterior (DA), deltoides posterior (DP), dorsal ancho (DA) y serrato anterior (SA) entre los ejercicios pullover barra (PB) y pullover pesas (PP). Método: Participaran del estudio 11 hombres entrenados (edad, 24,50 ± 4,34 años; porcentaje de grasa =13,63 ± 1,94; estatura = 1,76 ± 0,04 m; masa corporal total = 73,12 ± 6,10 kg). La primera fase del estudio consistió en las evaluaciones antropométricas y el test y re-test de 10 repeticiones máximas (RM). La segunda fase del estudio fue compuesta por la recolección de los signos electromiográficos en los ejercicios propuestos. Así, se realizó una serie con cargas ajustadas al 90% de 10 RM. Para verificar las diferencias en la activación de los respectivos músculos estudiados entre los ejercicios PB y PP se adoptó la prueba de la t de Student apareada para muestras dependientes. Resultados: No fueron observados cambios en la activación de ninguno de los músculos analizados en los ejercicios propuestos (P > 0,05). Conclusión: Se concluyó que la realización del ejercicio pullover con barra o con pesas no altera la participación/activación de los músculos involucrados.