Produção Nacional
Revisado por pares
Effect of Ischemic Preconditioning on Endurance Performance Does Not Surpass Placebo
2016; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 49; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1249/mss.0000000000001088
ISSN1530-0315
AutoresJeann L. Sabino‐Carvalho, Thiago Ribeiro Lopes, Tiago Obeid‐Freitas, Thiago N. Ferreira, José Ernesto Succi, Antônio C. Silva, Bruno M. Silva,
Tópico(s)Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
ResumoPurpose Recent studies have reported ischemic preconditioning (IPC) can acutely improve endurance exercise performance in athletes. However, placebo and nocebo effects have not been sufficiently controlled, and the effect on aerobic metabolism parameters that determine endurance performance (e.g., oxygen cost of running, lactate threshold, and maximal oxygen uptake [V˙O2max]) has been equivocal. Thus, we circumvented limitations from previous studies to test the effect of IPC on aerobic metabolism parameters and endurance performance in well-trained runners. Methods Eighteen runners (14 men/4 women) were submitted to three interventions, in random order: IPC; sham intervention (SHAM); and resting control (CT). Subjects were told both IPC and SHAM would improve performance compared to CT (i.e., similar placebo induction), and IPC would be harmless despite circulatory occlusion sensations (i.e., nocebo avoidance). Next, pulmonary ventilation and gas exchange, blood lactate concentration, and perceived effort were measured during a discontinuous incremental test on a treadmill. Then, a supramaximal test was used to verify the V˙O2max and assess endurance performance (i.e., time to exhaustion). Results Ventilation, oxygen uptake, carbon dioxide output, lactate concentration, and perceived effort were similar among IPC, SHAM, and CT throughout the discontinuous incremental test (P > 0.05). Oxygen cost of running, lactate threshold, and V˙O2max were also similar among interventions (P > 0.05). Time to exhaustion was longer after IPC (mean ± SEM, 165.34 ± 12.34 s) and SHAM (164.38 ± 11.71 s) than CT (143.98 ± 12.09 s; P = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively), but similar between IPC and SHAM (P = 1.00). Conclusions IPC did not change aerobic metabolism parameters, whereas improved endurance performance. The IPC improvement, however, did not surpass the effect of a placebo intervention.
Referência(s)