Precondicionamento isquêmico em uma sessão de CrossFit® sobre o desempenho, as respostas metabólicas, hemodinâmicas e perceptivas

Abstract

Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) has been an effective maneuver to improve sports performance in some modalities, in addition to improving metabolic and hemodynamic responses. CrossFit® training has characteristics that demand methods in order to improve the performance of athletes. Thus, it becomes necessary to assess the effects of IPC in a CrossFit® training session.The study aimed to analyze the acute effect of ischemic preconditioning on performance, metabolic responses, perceived exertion and hemodynamic responses in a CrossFit® training session. Method: CrossFit® training volunteers performed a standardized test of the modality called Fran. The sample was divided into two sessions in a randomized and crossover mode conducted by “randomization.com”.The volunteers performed the following protocols: a) IPC + Fran and b) SHAM (placebo session) + Fran. In both protocols, a time of 30 minutes was respected between IPC or SHAM and Fran. Performance time, lactate, muscle oxygen saturation, hemoglobin rate, perceived exertion (PE), subjective perception of pain (SPP), heart rate, resting and recovering systolic and diastolic blood pressure were analyzed and compared. Homogeneity of variance, effect size, one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA were performed. Results:In study 1, the sample consisted of 15 volunteers. The results showed that the application of IPC did not improve performance between IPC vs SHAM sessions (p=0.61), hemoglobin rate (p=0.679) and perceptual responses (PE 0.61 and SPP 0.80). In the variable lactate, in the 12th minute, there was a difference between sessions (p=0.044). In the assessment of muscle oxygen saturation, it is possible to observe that, after the application of IPC, the mean decreases (p = 0.16). After 12 minutes, oxygen saturation returned to rest, showing a difference between IPC vs. SHAM. In study 2, the sample consisted of 12 volunteers. Performance was not significantly different between sessions (p=0.55). Heart rate decreased in both sessions, however, with no significant difference between them (p=0.332). Systolic blood pressure similarly reduced between sessions during recovery in the 1st, 5th and 10th minute (p<0.001) and in the 1st minute between sessions (p=0.045), with a significant difference. Diastolic blood pressure differed between resting times, 1, 5 and 10 minutes of recovery for IPC (p<0.001) and for SHAM it differed between resting times, 1st and 10th min. (p<0.001), and between sessions in the 5th min of recovery (p=0.007). IPC does not improve performance, but improves lactate responses, muscle oxygen saturation, hemodynamic responses of CrossFit® training practitioners.