Active ischemic pre-conditioning does not additively improve short-term high-intensity cycling performance when combined with caffeine ingestion in trained young men
Søren Jessen, Martin Zeuthen, Jan Sommer Jeppesen, Frederik Kehler, Casper Bjerre Olesen, Anders Pallisgaard, Danny Christiansen, Jens Bangsbo
{"title":"Active ischemic pre-conditioning does not additively improve short-term high-intensity cycling performance when combined with caffeine ingestion in trained young men","authors":"Søren Jessen, Martin Zeuthen, Jan Sommer Jeppesen, Frederik Kehler, Casper Bjerre Olesen, Anders Pallisgaard, Danny Christiansen, Jens Bangsbo","doi":"10.1002/ejsc.12088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We investigated the effect of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) with and without caffeine supplementation on mean power output (MPO) during a 4-min cycling time-trial (TT). In a double-blinded, randomized, crossover-design, 11 trained men performed a TT on 4 days separated by ∼1 week. One hour before TT, participants ingested either caffeine (3 mg kg bw<sup>−1</sup>) or placebo pills, after which femoral blood-flow was either restricted with occlusion cuffs inflated to ∼180 mmHg (IPC), or sham-restricted (0–10 mmHg; Sham) during 3 × 2-min low-intensity cycling (10% of incremental peak power output). Then, participants performed a standardized warm-up followed by the TT. Plasma lactate and K<sup>+</sup> concentrations and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured throughout trials. TT MPO was 382 ± 17 W in Placebo + Sham and not different from Placebo + IPC (−1 W; 95% CI: −9 to 7; <i>p</i> = 0.848; <i>d</i>: 0.06), whereas MPO was higher with Caffeine + Sham (+6W; 95% CI: −2 to 14; <i>p</i> = 0.115; <i>d</i>: 0.49) and Caffeine + IPC (+8 W; 95% CI: 2–13; <i>p</i> = 0.019; <i>d</i>: 0.79) versus Placebo + Sham. MPO differences were attributed to caffeine (caffeine main-effect: +7 W; 95% CI: 2–13; <i>p</i> = 0.015; <i>d</i>: 0.54. IPC main-effect: 0 W; 95% CI: −6 to 7; <i>p</i> = 0.891; <i>d</i>: 0.03; caffeine × IPC interaction-effect: <i>p</i> = 0.580; <i>d</i>: 0.17). TT RPE and plasma variables were not different between treatments. In conlcusion, IPC with co-ingestion of placebo does not improve short-term high-intensity performance in trained men versus a double-placebo control (Placebo + Sham) and does not additively enhance performance with caffeine. These data do not support IPC as a useful strategy for athletes prior to competition but confirms caffeine's performance-enhancing effect.</p>","PeriodicalId":93999,"journal":{"name":"European journal of sport science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsc.12088","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of sport science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.12088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We investigated the effect of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) with and without caffeine supplementation on mean power output (MPO) during a 4-min cycling time-trial (TT). In a double-blinded, randomized, crossover-design, 11 trained men performed a TT on 4 days separated by ∼1 week. One hour before TT, participants ingested either caffeine (3 mg kg bw−1) or placebo pills, after which femoral blood-flow was either restricted with occlusion cuffs inflated to ∼180 mmHg (IPC), or sham-restricted (0–10 mmHg; Sham) during 3 × 2-min low-intensity cycling (10% of incremental peak power output). Then, participants performed a standardized warm-up followed by the TT. Plasma lactate and K+ concentrations and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured throughout trials. TT MPO was 382 ± 17 W in Placebo + Sham and not different from Placebo + IPC (−1 W; 95% CI: −9 to 7; p = 0.848; d: 0.06), whereas MPO was higher with Caffeine + Sham (+6W; 95% CI: −2 to 14; p = 0.115; d: 0.49) and Caffeine + IPC (+8 W; 95% CI: 2–13; p = 0.019; d: 0.79) versus Placebo + Sham. MPO differences were attributed to caffeine (caffeine main-effect: +7 W; 95% CI: 2–13; p = 0.015; d: 0.54. IPC main-effect: 0 W; 95% CI: −6 to 7; p = 0.891; d: 0.03; caffeine × IPC interaction-effect: p = 0.580; d: 0.17). TT RPE and plasma variables were not different between treatments. In conlcusion, IPC with co-ingestion of placebo does not improve short-term high-intensity performance in trained men versus a double-placebo control (Placebo + Sham) and does not additively enhance performance with caffeine. These data do not support IPC as a useful strategy for athletes prior to competition but confirms caffeine's performance-enhancing effect.