## 4 Discussion  
The objective of this study was to investigate whether IPC acutely enhances 500 m rowing performance while having no effect on HR and BLa levels, with a potentially larger improvement in females compared to males. The main finding of this study was that the combined IPC intervention had no significant effect on 500 m rowing performance (time, peak and mean power output). Furthermore, the IPC protocol applied did not have a significant impact on BLa concentration and HR in the studied groups. Across all the measured variables, IPC significantly shortened the TPP in the females' group but not in the males. Recent studies suggest that the ergogenic effects of IPC may be sex-specific and related to differences in female and male metabolism during exercise [20; 21; 22; 23]. [PERSON] et al. [20], [PERSON] et al. [21], and [PERSON] [22] revealed sex differences in total muscle fiber mass and type, as well as skeletal muscle energy metabolism. However, to the best of the author's knowledge, this is one of the few studies that have investigated the sex-specific effects of IPC [13; 14; 24]. From all the studied variables in the current study related to 500 m rowing performance, IPC solely led to a reduction in TPP exclusively in the female group. This finding partially contradicts recent reports indicating either no effects of IPC on the subsequent performance of female participants [24] or, if present, greater benefits in males than in females [13]. [PERSON] et al. [13] showed that during five sets of five maximal voluntary knee extensions, males demonstrated greater increases in the overall generated force than females. Moreover, [PERSON] et al. [24] reported no effects of IPC on repeated sprint cycling (5 \(\times\) 6 s) in female as well as male team sport athletes. The reason for this discrepancy may lie in the differences in the applied protocols across studies, particularly in the number of IPC cycles, reperfusion time, and muscle groups targeted by IPC. [PERSON] et al. [13] employed three cycles of 5 min with \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline  & **M (95\%CD)** & **F (95\%CI)** \\ \hline \(d\) & 0.04 & 0.26 \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Relative Peak Power Output [W/kg]**} \\ \hline
**SHAM** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} 6.5 \(\pm\) 1.4 \\ (6.0 to 7.1) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3.8 \(\pm\) 1.1 \\ (3.3 to 4.3) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**IPC** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} 6.8 \(\pm\) 1.1 \\ (6.3 to 7.2) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3.8 \(\pm\) 1 \\ (3.4 to 4.3) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \(d\) & 0.16 & 0 \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Relative Mean Power Output [W/kg]**} \\ \hline
**SHAM** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} 5.3 \(\pm\) 0.8 \\ (4.9 to 5.6) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} 2.8 \(\pm\) 0.7 \\ (2.5 to 3.2) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**IPC** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} 5.3 \(\pm\) 0.9 \\ (4.9 to 5.7) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3.0 \(\pm\) 0.7 \\ (2.6 to 3.3) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \(d\) & 0 & 0.29 \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Time to Peak Power Output [s] (Median; IQR)**} \\ \hline
**SHAM** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} 23.9 \(\pm\) 25.3 \\ (13.2 to 34.6; [12.4; 16]) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} 25.3 \(\pm\) 27.8 \\ (13.2 to 34.6; [16; 15]) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**IPC** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} 17.3 \(\pm\) 24.6 \\ (6.9 to 27.7; [9.9; 20.8]) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} 11.2 \(\pm\) 29.7 * \\ (\(-\)3.1 to 25.5; [1; 1.5]) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \(d\) & 0.26 & 0.49 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._18.5 min of reperfusion before the subsequent task, while [PERSON] et al. [24] used a similar protocol but with 11 min of reperfusion. In contrast, in this study, a single 5 min cycle with 5 min of reperfusion was applied. Such brief IPC has been revealed to be effective in a recent study conducted by [PERSON] et al. [7]. The authors showed that a single 5 min application of IPC to the upper limbs was sufficient to increase barbell velocity during 12 s of bench presses followed by 5 min of reperfusion in males.