| Title |
Impact of ischaemia–reperfusion cycles during ischaemic preconditioning on 2000-m rowing ergometer performance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-018-3891-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tiago Turnes, Rafael Alves de Aguiar, Rogério Santos de Oliveira Cruz, Amadeo Félix Salvador, Felipe Domingos Lisbôa, Kayo Leonardo Pereira, João Antônio Gesser Raimundo, Fabrizio Caputo |
| Abstract |
Although ischaemic preconditioning (IPC), induced by cycles of transient limb ischaemia and reperfusion, seems to improve exercise performance, the optimal duration of ischaemia-reperfusion cycles is not established. The present study investigated the effect of ischaemia-reperfusion duration within each IPC cycle on performance in a 2000-m rowing ergometer test. After incremental and familiarization tests, 16 trained rowers (mean ± SD: age, 24 ± 11 years; weight, 74.1 ± 5.9 kg; [Formula: see text] peak, 67.2 ± 7.4 mL·kg-1·min-1) were randomly submitted to a 2000-m rowing test preceded by intermittent bilateral cuff inflation of the lower limbs with three cycles of ischaemia-reperfusion, lasting 5 min (IPC-5) or 10 min (IPC-10) at 220 or 20 mmHg (control). Power output, [Formula: see text], heart rate, blood lactate concentration, pH, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), and near-infrared spectroscopy-derived measurements of the vastus lateralis muscle were continuously recorded. No differences among treatments were found in the 2000-m test (control: 424 ± 17; IPC-5: 425 ± 16; IPC-10: 424 ± 17 s; P = 0.772). IPC-10 reduced the tissue saturation index and oxy-haemoglobin concentration during exercise compared with control. The power output during the last 100-m segment was significantly lower with IPC-10. The IPC treatments increased the heart rate over the first 500 m and decreased the pH after exercise. No alterations were observed in [Formula: see text], blood lactate, or RPE among the trials. In conclusion, IPC does not improve the 2000-m rowing ergometer performance of trained athletes regardless of the length of ischaemia-reperfusion cycles. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 40% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Brazil | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 86 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 17% |
| Unknown | 25 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 29 | 34% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 29 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,283,318
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#2,651
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,335
of 343,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#32
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,952 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.