## 4 Discussion
Moreover, it has to be mentioned that in this study, IPC was applied to both the upper and lower limbs, whereas in the aforementioned studies, it was exclusively applied to the limbs involved in the task. This could suggest that, for females, a brief IPC stimulus with short reperfusion should be used to enhance short-duration, high-intensity exercise. Additionally, in this study, the TPP also decreased in the male participants after IPC; however, this difference did not reach statistical significance (small effect size \(d=0.26\)). Therefore, the simultaneous application of IPC to both the upper and lower limbs could potentially be a time-efficient method of reaping the benefits of ischemia, but its effectiveness may be limited to short-duration efforts, with a greater effect observed in females. Nevertheless, the 500 m rowing time, which would be the most relevant metric for individuals aiming to enhance their athletic performance, did not change. This study found that IPC had no significant effect on HR or BLa concentration. The lack of effect on HR following IPC is consistent with the majority of previous reports [6]. [PERSON] et al. [4] found no effect of IPC on peak HR during maximal constant load cycling, comparable to [PERSON] et al. [25] and [PERSON] et al. [26] during 3 min sprint cycling and 3 min sprint arm cycling, respectively. Therefore, it appears that IPC has no effect on HR, and there is no evidence that the ergogenic effect of IPC is related to its effect on the cardiovascular response. Similarly, the absence of a substantial impact on BLa concentration observed in this investigation is consistent with a recent literature review by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [6]. The authors indicated that the overwhelming majority of studies (34 out of 43 included in their review) found no significant changes in BLa concentration following IPC. Specifically, [PERSON] et al. [27] found no difference in BLa concentrations between IPC and SHAM conditions after a repetitive sprint swimming protocol. In contrast, [PERSON] et al. [24] demonstrated a reduction in BLa concentration following IPC relative to placebo and control conditions, but only in female participants and not in males. In addition, [PERSON] et al. [28] revealed that IPC had no effect on BLa concentrations compared to the SHAM condition; however, they investigated remote IPC (upper body, prior to a Wingate cycling test). Despite the results of this study showing no effect of IPC on the concentration of BLa, a consistent trend in its reduction could be seen in females (\(d=0.26\)). Consequently, it appears that additional studies are necessary to comprehend the impact of IPC in modulating BLa concentration responses during exercise, particularly in female participants. Females have a greater capacity for oxidative metabolism utilization than males [12; 23; 29], which could potentially challenge the ergogenic effect of IPC; however, sex-specific responses have been found only in the TPP within this study. This suggests that IPC might shift metabolism towards anaerobic pathways, resulting in a shorter time being needed to obtain peak power output in females. Existing findings indicate that IPC enhances exercises utilizing distinct energy pathways [30; 31]; however, direct comparisons of the effects of IPC on various types of exercises (phosphagen vs. glycolytic vs. oxidative) in male and female populations are lacking. The available evidence suggests that sex-specific responses to IPC may exist, and additional research with larger and well-controlled female cohorts is required to completely elucidate the potential effects of IPC on the performance and metabolic responses of female participants. Several limitations of this study should be considered. The procedure of this study tested only one IPC protocol, i.e., 5 min at 220 mmHg, applied simultaneously to the lower and upper limbs, while the vast majority of studies used upper- or lower-body-only IPC, often employing multiple cycles.