Award Date

May 2016

Degree Type


Degree Name

Master of Science (MS)


Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences

First Committee Member

John A. Mercer

Second Committee Member

James Navalta

Third Committee Member

Tedd Girouard

Fourth Committee Member

Karl Kingsley

Number of Pages



The main aim of this study was to determine if IPC after a 5000 m run influences maximal effort 1600 m run performance. A secondary purpose was to determine if the level of IPC pressure used influences run performance. Nine subjects (6 male and 3 female were included in the study; 30 years±5.19 years; Height 173.72cm±8.25; Weight; 72.54±9.97 kg). These subjects were recruited to be in this study via word of mouth or social media advertisement in the Las Vegas area. Participant inclusion criteria was 18- 50 year old apparently healthy, had been running a minimum of 20 miles a week for the last 3 months, and had competed in one race that included running or had a running component to it in the last year, has not had a diagnosed injury in the last 3 months, and were not pregnant. Subjects complete an institutionally reviewed informed consent along with a running questionnaire to give a sense of their running background.

The subjects were ask to perform a 5000-meter competitive run together to induce a competitive atmosphere. After subjects completed the 5000-meter run, subjects returned to the UNLV biomechanics laboratory. The IPC device utilized in this study is the Recovery Pump RPS Complete System (SKU 701A, Pennsylvania, PA) is an FDA approved intermittent pneumatic compression device that provides sequential pressure. The settings on the IPC were randomly assigned either 80 mmHg of pressure or 20 mmHg of pressure. The duration of recovery time was 60 minutes in duration. During the recovery process there was some measurements collected. Every 10 minutes all subjects had their HR and BP measurements taken. The heart rate monitor utilized was the FT1 Polar heart rate monitor (Polar Electro Oy, Professorintie 5, FIN-90440 KEMPELE). The blood pressure cuff used in this study was the Omron BP710N 3 Series Upper Arm Blood Pressure Monitor (Omron Healthcare, Inc. Lake Forest, IL 60045)

After the 60 minutes of recovery time in the IPC device the boots were removed. After their warm up subjects were asked to perform a maximal 1600-meter effort. After a minimum of 72 hours recovery between the initial test day, subjects returned to UNLV track for day 2 to perform Day 2 tests. Day 2 procedures were identical to Day 1 with the only difference being that they will receive a different pressure setting (i.e., if subject 1 received 80 mmHg on Day 1, they would receive 20 mmHg on Day 2).

There were two sets of dependent variables collected. The performance variables were 1600 m performance and HRAvg during the 1600 m trial. The recovery variables were heart rate and blood pressure. 1600 m performance was not influenced by IPC Pressure ( p =0.495). The mean 1600 m run time following IPC pressure 20 mmHg was 366.6±53.59 s. The mean 1600 m run time following IPC pressure 80 mmHg was 364±54.26 s.HRAvg was not influenced by IPC Pressure ( p = 0.063). HRRec was not influenced by the interaction of time and pressure ( F(1,8) = 0.205, p = 0.925). HRRec was not influenced by pressure (F(1,8) = 0.169, p=0.692) but was influenced by time (F(4, 32) = 18.000, p<0.001). BPSystolic was not influenced by the interaction of time and pressure ( F(1,8) = 1.1, p = 0.431). BPSystolic was not influenced by pressure F(1,8) =1.8, p = 0.215. BPSystolic was not influenced by time (F(1,8) = 0.584, p=0.689). BPDiastolic was not influenced by the interaction of time and pressure (F(1,8) = 0.200, p = 0.928). The current research differs from the related IPC literature related to performance because it was the first in the reviewed literature to utilize an over ground endurance event to test the efficacy of the IPC product for performance. The performance of the subjects in the current study did not change while using the various IPC pressures, nor did the recovery parameters explored elicit any change during recovery. There seems to be an individual response to the IPC as a recovery modality, as this product becomes more popular in mainstream athletics the amount of literature testing the IPC device must grow if researchers are to better assist coaches and athletes with the practical usage of this product.


compression; Endurance; Movement; Performance; Recovery; Running


Biomechanics | Kinesiology | Medicine and Health Sciences

File Format


Degree Grantor

University of Nevada, Las Vegas




IN COPYRIGHT. For more information about this rights statement, please visit