Enhanced Metabolic Stress Augments Ischemic Preconditioning for Exercise Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To identify the combined effect of increasing tissue level oxygen consumption and metabolite accumulation on the ergogenic efficacy of IPC during both maximal aerobic and maximal anaerobic exercise. Methods: Twelve healthy males (22±2 years, 179±2 cm, 80±10 kg, 47.7±4 ml.kg-1.min-1) underwent four experimental conditions: i) no IPC control, ii) traditional IPC, iii) IPC with EMS and iv) IPC with treadmill walking. IPC involved bilateral leg occlusion at 220mmHg for five minutes, repeated three times, separated by 5 minutes of reperfusion. Within 10 minutes following the IPC procedures, a 30s Wingate test and subsequent (after 25-minute rest) incremental maximal aerobic test were performed on a cycle ergometer. Results: There was no statistical difference in anaerobic peak power between the no IPC control (1211±290W), traditional IPC (1209±300W), IPC + EMS (1206±311W), and IPC + Walk (1220±288W; P=0.7); nor did VO2max change between no IPC control (47.7±2ml.kg-1.min-1), traditional IPC (48.4±6 ml.kg-1.min-1), IPC + EMS (49.1±4 ml.kg-1.min-1) and IPC + Walk (48.0±6 ml.kg-1.min-1; P=0.3). However, the maximal watts during the VO2max increased when IPC was combined with both EMS (304±38W) and walking (308±40W) compared to traditional IPC (296±39W) and no IPC control (293±48W; P=0.02). Conclusion: This study shows that in a group of participants for whom a traditional IPC stimulus was not effective, the magnification of the IPC stress through muscle contractions while under occlusion led to a subsequent exercise performance response. These findings support that amplification of the ischemic preconditioning stimulus augments the effect for exercise performance.
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) | 0.000 | 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".