Ischemic Preconditioning, But Not Priming Exercise, Improves Exercise Performance in Trained Rock Climbers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: MacDougall, KB, McClean, ZJ, MacIntosh, BR, Fletcher, JR, and Aboodarda, SJ. Ischemic preconditioning, but not priming exercise, improves exercise performance in trained rock climbers. J Strength Cond Res 37(11): 2149-2157, 2023-To assess the effects of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) and priming exercise on exercise tolerance and performance fatigability in a rock climbing-specific task, 12 rock climbers completed familiarization and baseline tests, and constant-load hangboarding tests (including 7 seconds on and 3 seconds off at an intensity estimated to be sustained for approximately 5 minutes) under 3 conditions: (a) standardized warm-up (CON), (b) IPC, or (c) a priming warm-up (PRIME). Neuromuscular responses were assessed using the interpolated twitch technique, including maximum isometric voluntary contraction (MVC) of the finger flexors and median nerve stimulation, at baseline and after the performance trial. Muscle oxygenation was measured continuously using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) across exercise. Time to task failure (T lim ) for IPC (316.4 ± 83.1 seconds) was significantly greater than CON (263.6 ± 69.2 seconds) ( p = 0.028), whereas there was no difference between CON and PRIME (258.9 ± 101.8 seconds). At task failure, there were no differences in MVC, single twitch force, or voluntary activation across conditions; however, recovery of MVC and single twitch force after the performance trial was delayed for IPC and PRIME compared with CON ( p < 0.05). Despite differences in T lim , there were no differences in any of the NIRS variables assessed. Overall, despite exercise tolerance being improved by an average of 20.0% after IPC, there were no differences in neuromuscular responses at task failure, which is in line with the notion of a critical threshold of peripheral fatigue. These results indicate that IPC may be a promising precompetition strategy for rock climbers, although further research is warranted to elucidate its mechanism of action.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".