Ischemic preconditioning does not improve peak exercise capacity at sea level or simulated high altitude in trained male cyclists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) may improve blood flow and oxygen delivery to tissues, including skeletal muscle, and has the potential to improve intense aerobic exercise performance, especially that which results in arterial hypoxemia. The aim of the study was to determine the effects of IPC of the legs on peak exercise capacity (W(peak)), submaximal and peak cardiovascular hemodynamics, and peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) in trained males at sea level (SL) and simulated high altitude (HA; 13.3% FIO2, ∼ 3650 m). Fifteen highly trained male cyclists and triathletes completed 2 W(peak) tests (SL and HA) and 4 experimental exercise trials (10 min at 55% altitude-specific W(peak) then increasing by 30 W every 2 min until exhaustion) with and without IPC. HA resulted in significant arterial hypoxemia during exercise compared with SL (73% ± 6% vs. 93% ± 4% SpO2, p < 0.001) that was associated with 21% lower W(peak) values. IPC did not significantly improve W(peak) at SL or HA. Additionally, IPC failed to improve cardiovascular hemodynamics or SpO2 during submaximal exercise or at W(peak). In conclusion, IPC performed 45 min prior to exercise does not improve W(peak) or systemic oxygen delivery during submaximal or peak exercise at SL or HA. Future studies must examine the influence of IPC on local factors, such as working limb blood flow, oxygen delivery, and arteriovenous oxygen difference as well as whether the effectiveness of IPC is altered by the volume of muscle made ischemic, the timing prior to exercise, and high altitude acclimatization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".