Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Oct;48(10):1967-75.
doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000977.

Ischemic Preconditioning and Repeated Sprint Swimming: A Placebo and Nocebo Study

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Ischemic Preconditioning and Repeated Sprint Swimming: A Placebo and Nocebo Study

Thiago N Ferreira et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016 Oct.

Abstract

Purpose: Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) has been shown to improve performance of exercises lasting 10-90 s (anaerobic) and more than 90 s (aerobic). However, its effect on repeated sprint performance has been controversial, placebo effect has not been adequately controlled, and nocebo effect has not been avoided. Thus, the IPC effect on repeated sprint performance was investigated using a swimming task and controlling placebo/nocebo effects.

Methods: Short-distance university swimmers were randomized to two groups. One group (n = 15, 24 ± 1 yr [mean ± SEM]) was exposed to IPC (ischemia cycles lasted 5 min) and control (CT) (no ischemia); another (n = 15, 24 ± 1 yr) to a placebo intervention (SHAM) (ischemia cycles lasted 1 min) and CT. Seven subjects crossed over groups. Subjects were informed IPC and SHAM would improve performance compared with CT and would be harmless despite circulatory occlusion sensations. The swimming task consisted of six 50-m all-out efforts repeated every 3 min.

Results: IPC, in contrast with SHAM, reduced worst sprint time (IPC, 35.21 ± 0.73 vs CT, 36.53 ± 0.72 s; P = 0.04) and total sprints time (IPC, 203.7 ± 4.60 vs CT, 206.03 ± 4.57 s; P = 0.02), moreover augmented swimming velocity (IPC, 1.45 ± 0.03 vs CT, 1.44 ± 0.03 m·s; P = 0.049). Six of seven subjects who crossed over groups reduced total sprints time with IPC versus SHAM (delta = -3.95 ± 1.49 s, P = 0.09). Both IPC and SHAM did not change blood lactate concentration (P = 0.20) and perceived effort (P = 0.22).

Conclusion: IPC enhanced repeated sprint swimming performance in university swimmers, whereas a placebo intervention did not.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Crucial Points for Analysis of Ischemic Preconditioning in Sports and Exercise.
    Marocolo M, Coriolano HA, Mourão CA, da Mota GR. Marocolo M, et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017 Jul;49(7):1495-1496. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001268. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017. PMID: 28622203 No abstract available.
  • Response.
    Sabino-Carvalho JLC, Ferreira THN, Lopes TR, Silva BM. Sabino-Carvalho JLC, et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017 Jul;49(7):1497-1498. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001269. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017. PMID: 28622204 No abstract available.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources