Suppr超能文献

缺血预处理真的能提高性能,还是只是安慰剂效应?

Does ischemic preconditioning really improve performance or it is just a placebo effect?

机构信息

Physiology and Human Performance Research Group, Department of Physiology, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil.

Exercise Science, Health and Human Performance Research Group, Department of Sport Sciences, Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Minas Gerais, Brazil.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2021 May 3;16(5):e0250572. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250572. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

This study examined the effects of a simultaneous ischemic preconditioning (IPC) and SHAM intervention to reduce the placebo effect due to a priori expectation on the performance of knee extension resistance exercise. Nine moderately trained men were tested in three different occasions. Following the baseline tests, subjects performed a first set of leg extension tests after the IPC (3 X 5 min 50 mmHg above systolic blood pressure) on right thigh and the SHAM (same as IPC, but 20 mmHg) on left thigh. After 48 hours, the subjects performed another set of tests with the opposite applications. Number of repetitions, maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) and perceptual indicators were analyzed. After IPC and SHAM intervention performed at the same time, similar results were observed for the number of repetitions, with no significant differences between conditions (baseline x IPC x SHAM) for either left (p = 0.274) or right thigh (p = 0.242). The fatigue index and volume load did not show significant effect size after IPC and SHAM maneuvers. In contrast, significant reduction on left tight MVIC was observed (p = 0.001) in SHAM and IPC compared to baseline, but not for right thigh (p = 0.106). Results from the current study may indicate that applying IPC prior to a set of leg extension does not result in ergogenic effects. The placebo effect seems to be related to this technique and its dissociation seems unlikely, therefore including a SHAM or placebo group in IPC studies is strongly recommended.

摘要

本研究旨在检验同时进行缺血预处理(IPC)和假处理(SHAM)干预,以减少因先验预期而导致的膝关节伸展抗阻运动的安慰剂效应。9 名中等训练水平的男性在三种不同情况下接受了测试。在基线测试后,受试者在右大腿进行了第一组腿伸展测试,先进行 IPC(3 次,每次 5 分钟,收缩压以上 50mmHg),然后进行 SHAM(与 IPC 相同,但 20mmHg),左大腿。48 小时后,受试者以相反的方式进行了另一组测试。分析了重复次数、最大自主等长收缩(MVIC)和感知指标。在同时进行 IPC 和 SHAM 干预后,重复次数的结果相似,两种条件(IPC 和 SHAM)下左(p=0.274)或右大腿(p=0.242)之间均无显著差异。IPC 和 SHAM 操作后,疲劳指数和容量负荷未显示出显著的效应量。相比之下,SHAM 和 IPC 组与基线相比,左大腿的 MVIC 明显降低(p=0.001),但右大腿则没有(p=0.106)。本研究结果表明,在一组腿伸展运动之前进行 IPC 并不能产生增强作用。安慰剂效应似乎与该技术有关,且其分离似乎不太可能,因此强烈建议在 IPC 研究中纳入 SHAM 或安慰剂组。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4ffc/8092792/4d8f2d810c94/pone.0250572.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验