This study evaluated the effect of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) on resistance exercise performance in the lower limbs. Thirteen men participated in a randomized crossover design that involved 3 separate sessions (IPC, PLACEBO, and control). A 12-repetition maximum (12RM) load for the leg extension exercise was assessed through test and retest sessions before the first experimental session. The IPC session consisted of 4 cycles of 5 minutes of occlusion at 220 mm Hg of pressure alternated with 5 minutes of reperfusion at 0 mm Hg for a total of 40 minutes. The PLACEBO session consisted of 4 cycles of 5 minutes of cuff administration at 20 mm Hg of pressure alternated with 5 minutes of pseudo-reperfusion at 0 mm Hg for a total of 40 minutes. The occlusion and reperfusion phases were conducted alternately between the thighs, with subjects remaining seated. No ischemic pressure was applied during the control (CON) session and subjects sat passively for 40 minutes. Eight minutes after IPC, PLACEBO, or CON, subjects performed 3 repetition maximum sets of the leg extension (2-minute rest between sets) with the predetermined 12RM load. Four minutes after the third set for each condition, blood lactate was assessed. The results showed that for the first set, the number of repetitions significantly increased for both the IPC (13.08 ± 2.11; p = 0.0036) and PLACEBO (13.15 ± 0.88; p = 0.0016) conditions, but not for the CON (11.88 ± 1.07; p > 0.99) condition. In addition, the IPC and PLACEBO conditions resulted insignificantly greater repetitions vs. the CON condition on the first set (p = 0.015; p = 0.007) and second set (p = 0.011; p = 0.019), but not on the third set (p = 0.68; p > 0.99). No difference (p = 0.465) was found in the fatigue index and lactate concentration between conditions. These results indicate that IPC and PLACEBO IPC may have small beneficial effects on repetition performance over a CON condition. Owing to potential for greater discomfort associated with the IPC condition, it is suggested that ischemic preconditioning might be practiced gradually to assess tolerance and potential enhancements to exercise performance.

This study examined the performance effects of exercise order during a resistance-training session composed of only upper-body exercises. The 10 repetition maximum of 14 men and 4 women with at least 6 months of previous weight-training experience was determined for 5 upper-body exercises. Each subject then completed 2 training sessions separated by 48 hours in a counterbalanced crossover design. One session began with exercises of the large-muscle group and progressed to exercises of the small-muscle group (sequence A), whereas the other session was performed with the opposite exercise sequence (sequence B). The exercise order for sequence A was free-weight bench press (BP), machine lat pull-down (LPD), seated machine shoulder press (SP), standing free-weight biceps curl (BC) with a straight bar, and seated machine triceps extension (TE). The exercise order for sequence B was TE, BC, SP, LPD, and BP. During both sequences, 3 sets of each exercise were performed to concentric failure, with 2-minute recovery intervals between sets and exercises. Performing exercises of both the large- and the small-muscle groups at the end of an exercise sequence resulted in significantly fewer repetitions in the 3 sets of an exercise. This decrease in the number of repetitions performed was especially apparent in the third set when an exercise was performed last in an exercise sequence.

This study evaluated the effect of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) on resistance exercise performance in upper limbs. After 12-RM load determination, 21 men attended 4 trials separated by 3 days in a randomized crossover design: IPC (4×5-min occlusion 220 mmHg/reperfusion 0 mmHg) in arms and in thighs, and SHAM (equal to the IPC protocol but "occlusion" at 20 mmHg) in arms and in thighs. 8 min following the respective interventions, the subjects performed one set of resistance exercise in elbow flexion with the 12-RM load until concentric failure. The number of repetitions increased for both protocols in arm (IPC=14.1±2.5 and SHAM=14.4±3.0) and in thigh (IPC=14.3±2.2 and SHAM=13.4±1.7). However, the number of repetitions tended to decrease over the 4 trials and no more effect was found in the fourth trial. Therefore, IPC or SHAM may enhance performance in resistance exercise for upper limbs, but this effect apparently fades over time.

No abstract

Low-intensity resistance exercise (RE) combined with blood flow restriction (BFR) has been shown to promote similar increases in strength and hypertrophy as traditional high-intensity RE without BFR. However, the effect of BFR on the acute postexercise hypotensive response has received limited examination. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare high-intensity exercise (HIE) vs. low-intensity RE with BFR on the postexercise hypotensive response in normotensive young subjects. Fifteen men (age: 23.4 ± 3.4 years) performed the following 2 experimental protocols in randomized order: (a) 3 sets of biceps curls (BCs) at 80% of 1 repetition maximum (RM) and 120-second rest between sets (HIE protocol) and (b) 3 sets of BCs at 40% of 1RM with BFR and 60-second rest between sets. Analysis of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was conducted for 60 minutes after both protocols. The values for SBP, DBP, and mean blood pressure (MBP) at baseline and postexercise were not significantly different between the HIE vs. the BFR protocol. However, within the BFR protocol, significant decreases (p ≤ 0.05) in SBP occurred at 30 minutes (125.86 ± 9.33 mm Hg) and 40 minutes (125.53 ± 10.19 mm Hg) after exercise when compared with baseline (132.86 ± 9.12 mm Hg) and significant decreases in DBP and MBP occurred at 20 minutes, 30 minutes, and 40 minutes after exercise vs. baseline (p ≤ 0.05). Therefore, we conclude that exercises engaging a relatively small amount of muscle mass, such as the BC (or other similar single joint exercises), might be performed at a lower intensity with BFR to promote a postexercise hypotensive response.