Skip to content

Ischaemic preconditioning does not alter the determinants of endurance running performance in the heat.

PMID 27406142 (2016): ischaemic, preconditioning — Performance in heat (study note for endurance athletes).

Last updated/Feb 23, 2026, 11:13 PM

Study note • PMID 27406142

Ischaemic preconditioning does not alter the determinants of endurance running performance in the heat.

European journal of applied physiology2016 • DOI 10.1007/s00421-016-3430-y
Evidence C56/100
Action 2: Consider

Worth trying if it fits your goal and context.

ELI5

In plain language

Ischaemic preconditioning (IP) has been shown to be ergogenic for endurance performance in normothermic conditions and alleviate physiological strain under hypoxia, potentially through haemodynamic and/or metabolic mechanisms. (controlled study; participants).

The abstract doesn’t indicate a clear change in Performance in heat under the tested conditions. Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.

Takeaways

What the abstract suggests

  • Study question: Ischaemic preconditioning (IP) has been shown to be ergogenic for endurance performance in normothermic conditions and alleviate physiological strain under hypoxia, potentially through haemodynamic and/or metabolic mechanisms.
  • The abstract doesn’t indicate a clear change in Performance in heat under the tested conditions.
  • Population: participants.
  • Protocol cues (title/abstract): 5 min.

Protocol

Protocol (as reported)

  • Intervention/exposure: ischaemic, preconditioning.
  • Dose/time/duration cues in abstract/title: 5 min.
  • Outcomes: Performance in heat.
  • Replication note: abstracts often omit adherence and timing; confirm details before changing training or supplementation.

Fit

Who it helps, and who should skip it

Who it helps

  • Athletes similar to the study population (participants) working on heat.
  • Athletes who can measure Performance in heat with a repeatable workout or time-trial effort.

Who should skip

  • If you have symptoms or conditions that make the intervention risky, get professional guidance.
  • If you’re near race day and can’t safely test, defer the experiment.

Methods

What the study actually did

  • Design: controlled study.
  • Population: participants.
  • Outcomes measured: Performance in heat.
  • Protocol cues mentioned: 5 min.
  • Source: PubMed PMID 27406142 (2016) — European journal of applied physiology.

Results excerpt

What the abstract reports

There was no difference in [Formula: see text]O2max [CON 55.5 (3.7) mL kg(-1) min(-1), IP 56.0 (2.6) mL kg(-1) min(-1), p = 0.436], average running economy [CON 222.3 (18.0) mL kg(-1) km(-1), IP 218.9 (16.5) mL kg(-1) km(-1), p = 0.125], or total…

Note: excerpts are short; for full context, read the paper.

Limits

Limitations & bias

  • Abstract-only summaries can miss critical details (population, protocol, adherence, and context).
  • Single studies often don’t generalize to your event, history, and training load; treat results as a starting point.
  • If your context differs (elite vs recreational; cycling vs running), adjust expectations and be conservative.
  • This is performance information, not medical advice.

Coaching beta

Get a plan that adapts to your life.

Join the 26weeks.ai TestFlight beta for adaptive coaching, recovery-aware adjustments, and race-week reminders.

Keep going

Sources