| Autor: |
Meireles A; Department of Physiology, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, MG, BRAZIL., Souza HLR; Department of Physiology, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, MG, BRAZIL., Arriel RA; Department of Physiology, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, MG, BRAZIL., Ribeiro GGS; Department of Physiology, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, MG, BRAZIL., Rodrigues AB; Department of Physiology, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, MG, BRAZIL., DE Oliveira GT; Department of Physiology, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, MG, BRAZIL., Ide BN; Exercise Science, Healthy and Human Performance Research Group, Federal University of Triângulo Mineiro, Uberaba, MG, BRAZIL., Chagas MH; Weight Training Laboratory, School of Physical Education, Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, BRAZIL., Marocolo M; Department of Physiology, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, MG, BRAZIL. |
| Abstrakt: |
Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) has been an excellent strategy for enhancing sports performance recovery, although there is still no consensus on the ideal protocol. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of IPC with different cuff pressures (low pressure, medium pressure, and high pressure) on the attenuation of neuromuscular fatigue after an isometric test protocol. And to verify whether this improvement was related to muscle oxygen saturation during the test protocol. Thirty males (18-35 years old) with experience in resistance training were allocated to three different groups: low pressure (20 mmHg), medium pressure (100 mmHg), and high pressure (190 mmHg). The individual occlusion pressure of each participant was identified using ultrasound. Each participant performed two test protocols (8 maximal isometric contractions lasting 20-s with a 10-s rest interval) in an extension chair; after the first test protocol, the participant received the IPC intervention with a low, medium, or high cuff pressure or received the noncuff intervention (randomized order). Only the medium-pressure group showed a smaller decrease in mean force change compared to the no-cuff condition (-4.40% vs. -13.10%, p=0.01, respectively), and the low- and high-pressure groups did not exhibit significant pressure differences (IPC vs. noncuff: -8.40% vs. -13.10%, p=0.11 and -9.10% vs. -14.70%, p=0.12, respectively). Muscle oxygen saturation across test protocols showed no significant differences in all IPC conditions (p>0.05). Although, IPC with medium pressure was effective at optimizing the recovery of neuromuscular performance, this improvement is not related to an increase in muscle oxygen saturation during exercise. |
