ArticleInternational journal of exercise science2020
Ischemic Preconditioning Does Not Improve Time Trial Performance in Recreational Runners.
Article in International journal of exercise science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing physical performance with ischemic preconditioning: a systematic review and meta-analysis of moderators and performance outcomes.Biology of sport · 2026Review
- Low-Dose Ammonium Preconditioning Enhances Endurance in Submaximal Physical Exercises.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Remote Ischemic Preconditioning Does Not Improve the Six Minutes Walk Test Performance in Chronic Heart Failure Patients: a Randomised Pilot Trial.International journal of exercise science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Some evidence indicates that ischemic preconditioning (IPC) may positively affect endurance exercise performance, but IPC's effect on running performance is unclear. This study's purpose was to examine the effect of IPC on running performance in recreational runners. Participants (n=12) completed IPC, a sham (SH) condition, and a leg elevation without blood restriction (LE) control condition on separate days (order randomized). For IPC, blood was restricted using blood pressure cuffs inflated to 220 mmHg at the thigh. For SH, the cuffs were inflated to only 20 mmHg. For LE, participants positioned their legs at 90 degrees against a wall while laying supine. The duration of each protocol was 30 minutes (three 5-minute bouts with 5-minute breaks). Following each protocol, participants ran 2.4 kilometers as fast as possible on a motorized treadmill. Run time, heart rate, and perceived exertion were measured and statistically compared, using repeated-measures ANOVA, each 0.8 kilometers. There were no differences in heart rate or time trial performance across protocols (p>0.05; IPC, 612.5±61.2 sec; SH, 608.1±57.9 sec; LE, 612.7±59.1 sec). Rating of perceived exertion at 0.8 kilometers was significantly lower for the IPC protocol than SH in females only (~5.7%, or ~0.8 points on a 6-20 scale; p<0.05). Our IPC protocol did not improve running performance or physiological parameters during a time trial run in recreational runners. The performance benefit seen in this study's most fit individuals suggests that fitness level may influence IPC's efficacy for improving endurance running performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.