Effects of exercise intensity and occlusion pressure after 12 weeks of resistance training with blood-flow restriction

2015 ◽  
Vol 115 (12) ◽  
pp. 2471-2480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manoel E. Lixandrão ◽  
Carlos Ugrinowitsch ◽  
Gilberto Laurentino ◽  
Cleiton A. Libardi ◽  
André Y. Aihara ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
William Neil Morley ◽  
Shane Ferth ◽  
Mathew Ian Bergens Debenham ◽  
Matthew Boston ◽  
Geoffrey Alonzo Power ◽  
...  

Despite compelling muscular structure and function changes resulting from blood flow restricted (BFR) resistance training, mechanisms of action remain poorly characterized. Alterations in tissue O2 saturation (TSI%) and metabolites are potential drivers of observed changes, but their relationships with degree of occlusion pressure are unclear. We examined local TSI% and blood lactate (BL) concentration during BFR training to failure using different occlusion pressures on strength, hypertrophy, and muscular endurance over an 8-week training period. Twenty participants (11M:9F) trained 3/wk for 8wk using high pressure (100% resting limb occlusion pressure, LOP, 20%1RM), moderate pressure (50% LOP, 20%1RM), or traditional resistance training (70%1RM). Strength, size, and muscular endurance were measured pre/post training. TSI% and BL were quantified during a training session. Despite overall increases, no group preferentially increased strength, hypertrophy, or muscular endurance (p>0.05). Neither TSI% nor BL concentration differed between groups (p>0.05). Moderate pressure resulted in greater accumulated deoxygenation stress (TSI%*time) (-6352±3081, -3939±1835, -2532±1349 au for moderate pressure, high pressure, and TRT, p=0.018). We demonstrate that BFR training to task-failure elicits similar strength, hypertrophy, and muscular endurance changes to traditional resistance training. Further, varied occlusion pressure does not impact these outcomes, nor elicit changes in TSI% or BL concentrations. Novelty Bullets • Training to task failure with low-load blood flow restriction elicits similar improvements to traditional resistance training, regardless of occlusion pressure. • During blood flow restriction, altering occlusion pressure does not proportionally impact tissue O2 saturation nor blood lactate concentrations


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 263502542110326
Author(s):  
Steven R. Dayton ◽  
Simon J. Padanilam ◽  
Tyler C. Sylvester ◽  
Michael J. Boctor ◽  
Vehniah K. Tjong

Background: Blood flow restriction (BFR) training restricts arterial inflow and venous outflow from the extremity and can produce gains in muscle strength at low loads. Low-load training reduces joint stress and decreases cardiovascular risk when compared with high-load training, thus making BFR an excellent option for many patients requiring rehabilitation. Indications: Blood flow restriction has shown clinical benefit in a variety of patient populations including healthy patients as well as those with osteoarthritis, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, polymyositis/dermatomyositis, and Achilles tendon rupture. Technique Description: This video demonstrates BFR training in 3 clinical areas: upper extremity resistance training, lower extremity resistance training, and low-intensity cycling. All applications of BFR first require determination of total occlusion pressure. Upper extremity training requires inflating the tourniquet to 50% of total occlusion pressure, while lower extremity exercises use 80% of total occlusion pressure. Low-load resistance training exercises follow a specific repetition scheme: 30 reps followed by a 30-second rest and then 3 sets of 15 reps with 30-seconds rest between each. During cycle training, 80% total occlusion pressure is used as the patient cycles for 15 minutes without rest. Results: Augmenting low-load resistance training with BFR increases muscle strength when compared with low-load resistance alone. In addition, low-load BFR has demonstrated an increase in muscle mass greater than low-load training alone and equivalent to high-load training absent BFR. A systematic review determined the safety of low-load training with BFR is comparable to traditional high-intensity resistance training. The most common adverse effects include exercise intolerance, discomfort, and dull pain which are also frequent in patients undergoing traditional resistance training. Severe adverse effects including deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and rhabdomyolysis are exceedingly rare, less than 0.006% according to a national survey. Patients undergoing BFR rehabilitation experience less perceived exertion and demonstrate decreased pain scores compared with high-load resistance training. Conclusion: Blood flow restriction training is an effective alternative to high-load resistance training for patients requiring musculoskeletal rehabilitation for multiple disease processes as well as in the perioperative setting. Blood flow restriction has been shown to be a safe training modality when managed by properly trained physical therapists and athletic trainers.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Waleed S. Mahmoud ◽  
Ahmed Osailan ◽  
Ahmed S. Ahmed ◽  
Ragab K. Elnaggar ◽  
Nadia L. Radwan

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the most common chronic diseases impacting millions of elderly people. OBJECTIVES: The study compared the effects of two intensities of partial blood flow restriction (BFR) with low-intensity resistance training on quadriceps strength and cross-sectional area (CSA), and pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (PwKOA). METHODS: Thirty-five PwKOA, aged 50–65, participated. Quadriceps CSA was measured by ultrasonography, quadriceps strength – by isokinetic dynamometry and pain by VAS. These outcome variables were obtained at the beginning of the study and re-evaluated eight weeks after the intervention. RESULTS: An interaction effect was present for quadriceps CSA (P= 0.042) and quadriceps strength (P= 0.006), showing that using 70% of total occlusion pressure with 30% 1RM had a more significant effect. Knee pain improved significantly through the main effect of BFR (P< 0.001), and low-intensity resistance training (P= 0.011). Pain improved more at 70% of total occlusion pressure, with 30% of 1RM (2.5 ± 1.06) than 50% total occlusion pressure with 10% of 1RM (5.77 ± 1.46). CONCLUSION: A combination of 70% of total occlusion pressure with 30% 1RM could be beneficial in PwKOA in improving pain, and increasing the quadriceps strength. The changes in the quadriceps strength could be a predictor for knee pain.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Matthew Zaremba ◽  
Joel Martin ◽  
Marcie Fyock-Martin

Clinical Scenario: Knee pathologies often require rehabilitation to address the loss of knee-extensor (KE) strength, function, and heightened pain. However, in the early stages of rehabilitation, higher loads may be contraindicated. Blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance training does not require high loads and has been used clinically to promote strength improvements in a variety of injured populations. BFR resistance training may be an effective alternative to high-intensity resistance training during early rehabilitation of knee pathologies. Clinical Question: Following a knee injury, does BFR resistance training improve KE strength and function, and reduce patient-reported pain? Summary of Key Findings: Four randomized controlled trial studies met the inclusion criteria. Each included study evaluated the use of BFR resistance training on knee pathologies and the effects on KE strength, functional outcomes, and pain compared with high- or low-load resistance training. All 4 studies reported significant improvements in KE strength, function, and pain through a variety of outcome measures, following BFR resistance training use as the treatment. Clinical Bottom Line: There is consistent evidence to support the use of BFR resistance training as a treatment intervention following knee injury and as a means to improve KE strength and function and to reduce pain. Strength of Recommendation: Grade A evidence supporting the use of BFR resistance training for improvement in KE strength and function, and the reduction of patient-reported pain following an acute or chronic knee pathology.


2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 317-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan P. Lowery ◽  
Jordan M. Joy ◽  
Jeremy P. Loenneke ◽  
Eduardo O. de Souza ◽  
Marco Machado ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lysleine Alves Deus ◽  
Rodrigo Vanerson Passos Neves ◽  
Hugo de Luca Corrêa ◽  
Andrea Lucena Reis ◽  
Fernando Sousa Honorato ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (16) ◽  
pp. 1857-1864 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin T. Mattocks ◽  
J. Grant Mouser ◽  
Matthew B. Jessee ◽  
Samuel L. Buckner ◽  
Scott J. Dankel ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (5S) ◽  
pp. 18-19
Author(s):  
Moisés Picón ◽  
Iván Chulvi-Medrano ◽  
Juan M. Cortell-Tormo ◽  
Diego A. Alonso-Aubin ◽  
Tamara Rial ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 118 (9) ◽  
pp. 1831-1843 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ethan C. Hill ◽  
Terry J. Housh ◽  
Joshua L. Keller ◽  
Cory M. Smith ◽  
Richard J. Schmidt ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 127 (6) ◽  
pp. 1660-1667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Centner ◽  
Benedikt Lauber ◽  
Olivier R. Seynnes ◽  
Simon Jerger ◽  
Tim Sohnius ◽  
...  

Low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) training has gained increasing interest in the scientific community by demonstrating that increases in muscle mass and strength are comparable to conventional high-load (HL) resistance training. Although adaptations on the muscular level are well documented, there is little evidence on how LL-BFR training affects human myotendinous properties. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate morphological and mechanical Achilles tendon adaptations after 14 wk of strength training. Fifty-five male volunteers (27.9 ± 5.1 yr) were randomly allocated into the following three groups: LL-BFR [20–35% of one-repetition maximum (1RM)], HL (70–85% 1RM), or a nonexercising control (CON) group. The LL-BFR and HL groups completed a resistance training program for 14 wk, and tendon morphology, mechanical as well as material properties, and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and isometric strength were assessed before and after the intervention. Both HL (+40.7%) and LL-BFR (+36.1%) training induced significant increases in tendon stiffness ( P < 0.05) as well as tendon CSA (HL: +4.6%, LL-BFR: +7.8%, P < 0.001). These changes were comparable between groups without significant changes in Young’s modulus. Furthermore, gastrocnemius medialis muscle CSA and plantar flexor strength significantly increased in both training groups ( P < 0.05), whereas the CON group did not show significant changes in any of the evaluated parameters. In conclusion, the adaptive change in Achilles tendon properties following low-load resistance training with partial vascular occlusion appears comparable to that evoked by high-load resistance training. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) training has been shown to induce beneficial adaptations at the muscular level. However, studies examining the effects on human tendon properties are rare. The findings provide first evidence that LL-BFR can increase Achilles tendon mechanical and morphological properties to a similar extent as conventional high-load resistance training. This is of particular importance for individuals who may not tolerate heavy training loads but still aim for improvements in myotendinous function.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document