Ischemic preconditioning does not alter muscle sympathetic responses to static handgrip and metaboreflex activation in young healthy men. Issue 14 (18th July 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Incognito, Anthony V.; Doherty, Connor J.; Lee, Jordan B.; Burns, Matthew J.; Millar, Philip J.
• Is Part Of: Physiological reports. Volume 5:Issue 14(2017)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2017-07-18
• Subjects: Blood pressure -- ischemic preconditioning -- isometric exercise -- sympathetic nervous system; Physiology -- Periodicals; 571
• DOI: 10.14814/phy2.13342
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2051-817X

Abstract

Abstract: Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) has been hypothesized to elicit ergogenic effects by reducing feedback from metabolically sensitive group III/IV muscle afferents during exercise. If so, reflex efferent neural outflow should be attenuated. We investigated the effects of IPC on muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) during static handgrip (SHG) and used post‐exercise circulatory occlusion (PECO) to isolate for the muscle metaboreflex. Thirty‐seven healthy men (age: 24 ± 5 years [mean ± SD]) were randomized to receive sham ( n = 16) or IPC ( n = 21) interventions. Blood pressure, heart rate, and MSNA (microneurography; sham n = 11 and IPC n = 18) were collected at rest and during 2 min of SHG (30% maximal voluntary contraction) and 3 min of PECO before (PRE) and after (POST) sham or IPC treatment (3 × 5 min 20 mmHg or 200 mmHg unilateral upper arm cuff inflation). Resting mean arterial pressure was higher following sham (79 ± 7 vs. 83 ± 6 mmHg, P < 0.01) but not IPC (81 ± 6 vs. 82 ± 6 mmHg, P > 0.05), while resting MSNA burst frequency was unchanged ( P > 0.05) with sham (18 ± 7 vs. 19 ± 9 bursts/min) or IPC (17 ± 7 vs. 19 ± 7 bursts/min). Mean arterial pressure, heart rate, stroke volume, cardiac output, and total vascular conductance responses during SHG and PECO were comparable PRE and POST following sham and IPC (All P > 0.05). Similarly, MSNA burst frequency, burst incidence, and total MSNA responses during SHG and PECO were comparable PRE and POST with sham and IPC (All P > 0.05). These findings demonstrate that IPC does not reduce hemodynamic responses or central sympathetic outflow directed toward the skeletal muscle during activation of the muscle metaboreflex using static exercise or subsequent PECO. Abstract : Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) has been hypothesized to reduce feedback from metabolically sensitive group III/IV muscle afferents during exercise. These afferents are known to influence central fatigue, muscle activation, and cardiovascular responses. Our results demonstrate that IPC does not attenuate central sympathetic outflow directed toward the skeletal muscle or pressor responses during static handgrip or subsequent post‐exercise circulatory occlusion.