No ergogenic effect of ischemic preconditioning applied 5 or 30 min before maximal self-paced cycling exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) is a potential ergogenic technique but the response rates vary considerably in the literature. The use of markedly different IPC protocols among the published literature, including pressure, rounds of ischemia, and time latencies potentially contribute to heterogenous responses. This study investigated whether the duration of time between the application of IPC and the commencement of exercise may explain equivocal ergogenic results. Fourteen (n = 11 male, n = 3 female) moderately trained volunteers participated in a familiarization and three experimental trials: no IPC (CON), IPC-5 (4 × 5 min IPC applied 5 min before exercise), and IPC-30 (4 × 5 min IPC applied 30 min before exercise). Participants completed maximal 10-min accumulated work (kJ) cycling time trials. Oxygen uptake (V.O2), heart rate, vastus lateralis tissue oxygenation, and blood lactate concentrations ([La–]b) were measured before, during, and after exercise. There were no differences in performance or physiological responses during or after exercise among CON, IPC-5, and IPC-30. These findings add further evidence to the existing literature reporting that IPC-related ergogenicity is equivocal when administered 5 or 30 min before exercise. These results reinforce the requirement to clarify whether there exists an IPC protocol that reliably elicits an ergogenic effect.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".