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

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.