Ischaemic pre‐conditioning improves workload, fatigue and recovery in team sport: A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled crossover trial

Abstract Ischaemic preconditioning (IPC) is reported to improve performance, fatigue and recovery, yet evidence in team‐sport settings remains limited. We examined the effects of repeated IPC on external workload, perceptual strain and recovery during ecologically valid Gaelic football training. In a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled crossover design, 13 male players completed two identical pitch sessions following IPC (3 × 5 min 220 mmHg occlusions; 48 h, 24 h and 30 min pre‐session) or placebo. Global positioning system‐quantified external load, and perceptual outcomes (fatigue, soreness, differential RPE [overall, cognitive/technical, breathing, leg muscle]) were obtained pre‐ and 0, 24 and 48 h post‐exercise. Countermovement and drop jumps were assessed pre‐, post‐ and 48 h post‐exercise. Participants were naïve to both conditions. IPC resulted in larger very‐high‐speed running distance versus placebo (210.6 ± 220.9 vs. 81.6 ± 65.7 m; P = 0.046; effect size [ES] = 0.62; Bayes factor [BF 10 ] = 1.71). Bayesian evidence also modestly supported greater sprint distance, high‐speed running and moderate‐intensity accelerations (BF 10 = 0.38–0.41). Despite increased external loads, IPC lowered perceptual strain, namely physical fatigue, muscle soreness and cognitive effort (ES ≈ 0.20–0.40; BF 10 = 0.28–0.49 [ P > 0.05]). IPC also improved recovery, evidenced by significantly better countermovement jump outcomes (BF 10 1.53–3.21; P = 0.017–0.042). Other non‐significant outcomes were directionally consistent. This study provides evidence that repeated IPC can improve (i) on‐field workload, (ii) acute perceptual and physical strain/fatigue, and (iii) post‐exercise recovery in team‐sport athletes. Nevertheless, similar to other recovery interventions (e.g., ice baths), a theoretical risk of blunting fatigue/inflammation, and their subsequent adaptive signalling potential, implicates that application may be best periodized for phases prioritizing acute workload and/or recovery over physiological adaptation (e.g., in‐season, before important matches).