Ischemic Preconditioning Maintains Performance on Two 5-km Time Trials in Hypoxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The ergogenic effect of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) on endurance exercise performed in hypoxia remains debated and has never been investigated with successive exercise bouts. Therefore, we evaluated if IPC would provide immediate or delayed effects during two 5-km cycling time trials (TT) separated by ~1 h in hypoxia. METHODS: In a counterbalanced randomized crossover design, 13 healthy males (27.5 ± 3.6 yr) performed two maximal cycling 5-km TT separated by ~1 h of recovery (TT1 25 min and TT2 2 h post-IPC/SHAM), preceded by IPC (3 × 5 min occlusion 220 mm Hg/reperfusion 0 mm Hg, bilaterally on thighs) or SHAM (20 mm Hg) at normobaric hypoxia (fraction of inspired oxygen [FiO2] of 16%). Performance and physiological (i.e., oxyhemoglobin saturation, heart rate, blood lactate, and vastus lateralis oxygenation) parameters were recorded. RESULTS: Time to complete (P = 0.011) 5-km TT and mean power output (P = 0.005) from TT1 to TT2 were worse in SHAM, but not in IPC (P = 0.381/P = 0.360, respectively). There were no differences in time, power output, or physiological variables during the two TT between IPC and SHAM. All muscle oxygenation indices differed (P < 0.001) during the IPC/SHAM with a greater deoxygenation in IPC. During the TT, there was a greater concentration of total hemoglobin in IPC than SHAM (P = 0.047) and greater total hemoglobin in TT1 than TT2. Further, the concentration of oxyhemoglobin was lower during TT2 than TT1 (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: In moderate hypoxia, IPC allowed maintaining a higher blood volume during a subsequent maximal exercise, mitigating the performance decrement between two consecutive cycling TT.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".