Assessment of the Impact of Sensor-Based Ischemic Preconditioning with Different Cycling Periods on Upper Limb Strength in Bodybuilding Athletes

Abstract

Objective: This study designed experiments to explore the effects of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) intervention with different cycling periods on the upper limb strength performance of college male bodybuilding athletes. Methods: Ten bodybuilding athletes were recruited for a randomized, double-blind, crossover experimental study. All subjects first underwent pre-tests with two sets of exhaustive bench presses at 60% of their one-repetition maximum (1RM) to assess upper limb strength performance. They then experienced three different IPC intervention modes (T1: 1 × 5 min, T2: 2 × 5 min, T3: 3 × 5 min), as well as a non-IPC intervention mode (CON), followed by a retest of the bench press. An Enode pro device was used to record the barbell’s velocity during the bench press movement (peak velocity (PV), mean velocity (MV)); power (peak power (PP), mean power (MP)); and time under tension (TUT) to evaluate upper limb strength performance. Results: PV values: T1 showed significant increases compared to pre-tests in the first (p = 0.02) and second (p = 0.024) tests, and were significantly greater than the CON (p = 0.032); T2 showed a significant increase in PV in the first test (p = 0.035), with no significant differences in other groups. MV values: T1 showed a significant increase in MV in the first test compared to the pre-test (p = 0.045), with no significant differences in other groups. PP values: T1 showed a highly significant increase in PP in the first test compared to the pre-test (p = 0.001), and was significantly higher than the CON (p = 0.025). MP values: T1 showed highly significant increases in MP in both the first (p = 0.004) and second (p = 0.003) tests compared to the pre-test; T2 showed a highly significant increase in MP in the first test (p = 0.039) and a significant increase in the second test (p = 0.039). T1’s MP values were significantly higher than the CON in both tests; T2’s MP values were significantly higher than the CON in the first (p = 0.005) and second (p = 0.024) tests. TUT values: T1 showed highly significant increases in TUT in the first (p < 0.001) and second (p = 0.002) tests compared to the pre-test, and were significantly higher than the CON. Conclusions: (1) Single-cycle and double-cycle IPC interventions both significantly enhance upper limb strength performance, significantly improving the speed and power in exhaustive bench press tests, with the single-cycle IPC intervention being more effective than the double-cycle IPC intervention. (2) The triple-cycle IPC intervention does not improve the upper limb strength performance of bodybuilding athletes in exhaustive bench presses.