Journal of strength and conditioning research · 2026
Ischemic Preconditioning Does Not Attenuate Reductions in Rate of Torque Development After Fatiguing Resistance Exercise.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lubiak Sean M, Howard Mason A, Schmidt Jeffrey T, Shah Niriham M, Patel Nihar N, Prajapati Anuj J, Herring Emma K, Hill Ethan C
Аннотация
Lubiak, SM, Howard, MA, Schmidt, JT, Shah, NM, Patel, NN, Prajapati, AJ, Herring, EK, and Hill, EC. Ischemic preconditioning does not attenuate reductions in rate of torque development after fatiguing resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 40(7): e676-e683, 2026-The purpose of this investigation was to examine the acute effects of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) on indices of rate of torque development (RTD) and peak torque (PT) after fatiguing resistance exercise. Twelve college-aged females randomly completed 3 cycles of IPC at low (20 mmHg [IPCSHAM]), moderate (80% of total arterial occlusion pressure [IPC80]), and high (220 mmHg [IPC220]) pressures. Each cycle consisted of 5 minutes at the assigned pressure followed by 5 minutes of zero pressure. After IPC, subjects performed one-set to volitional failure of unilateral, isotonic, concentric-only leg extension muscle actions at 30% of 1-repetition maximum. Two maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVICs) were performed before and immediately after the fatiguing exercise protocol to derive RTD at early (0-100 ms; RTD100), late (0-200 ms; RTD200), and peak (0-peak; RTDPK), as well as PT from the highest pretest and post-test MVIC. Separate 2-way, 3 (Pressure [IPCSHAM, IPC80, and IPC220]) × 2 (Time [Pretest, Post-test]), repeated-measures analysis of variance were performed to examine mean differences. Collapsed across Pressure, RTD100 (-113.9 Nm·s-1; p = 0.045), RTD200 (-94.5 Nm·s-1; p = 0.008), RTDPK (-157.0 Nm·s-1; p = 0.028), and PT (-15.2 Nm; p = 0.002) decreased from pretest to post-test. There were no significant interactions (p = 0.463-0.934) or main effects of Pressure (p = 0.235-0.581). Applying IPC at various pressures did not attenuate reductions in RTD or PT after fatiguing resistance exercise. Thus, coaches and practitioners may consider alternative exercise adjuncts or strategies to attenuate resistance exercise fatigue-induced performance reductions.