Evidence Hub

Effects of Individualized Ischemic Preconditioning on Protection Against Eccentric Exercise–Induced Muscle Damage: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Mikhail Santos Cerqueira, D. Kovacs, Ingrid Martins de França, R. Pereira, Sinval Bezerra da Nóbrega, Rúsia Dayanny Aires Nonato, Telma Maria de Araújo Moura Lemos, W. H. de Brito Vieira

Sports health, 2021

20 citations

Abstract

Background: The effects of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) versus a deceptive sham protocol on indirect markers of exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) after the application of individualized occlusion pressure were examined. The goal of using a sham protocol is to control for the potential effect of placebo. Hypothesis: IPC would surpass the sham protocol in protecting against EIMD. Study Design: A randomized, double-blinded, clinical trial. Level of Evidence: Level 1. Methods: Thirty healthy young men were randomly assigned to an eccentric exercise for the knee extensor muscles preceded by IPC (4 × 5 minutes of individualized total occlusion pressure) or sham protocol (4 × 5 minutes using 20 mm Hg). Maximal voluntary isometric torque (MVIT), rate of torque development, muscle soreness, pressure pain threshold, knee range of motion, thigh girth, and creatine kinase (CK) activity were assessed before IPC or sham protocol and up to 72 hours after the eccentric EIMD. Affective valence and perceived exertion were also evaluated. Results: MVIT decreased 17.1% in the IPC and 18.1% in the sham groups, with no differences between groups. Differences from baseline were observed in the sham group for muscle soreness at 48 hours (P < 0.001) and 72 hours (P = 0.02), and for CK activity at 72 hours (P = 0.04). Muscle soreness was reduced in the IPC group at 48 hours compared with the sham group (∆ = 15.8 mm; P = 0.008) but without achieving the minimal clinically important difference.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free