scholarly journals Effects of combined treatment with blood flow restriction and low-current electrical stimulation on muscle hypertrophy in rats

2019 ◽  
Vol 127 (5) ◽  
pp. 1288-1296
Author(s):  
Madoka Yoshikawa ◽  
Takeshi Morifuji ◽  
Tomohiro Matsumoto ◽  
Noriaki Maeshige ◽  
Minoru Tanaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Skeletal Muscle ◽  
Blood Flow ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Muscle Hypertrophy ◽  
Combined Treatment ◽  
Blood Flow Restriction ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy

This study aimed to clarify the effects of a combined treatment comprising blood flow restriction and low-current electrical stimulation on skeletal muscle hypertrophy in rats. Male Wistar rats were divided into control (Cont), blood flow restriction (Bfr), electrical stimulation (Es), or Bfr with Es (Bfr + Es) groups. Pressure cuffs (80 mmHg) were placed around the thighs of Bfr and Bfr + Es rats. Low-current Es was applied to calf muscles in the Es and Bfr + Es rats. In experiment 1, a 1-day treatment regimen (5-min stimulation, followed by 5-min rest) was delivered four times to study the acute effects. In experiment 2, the same treatment regimen was delivered three times/wk for 8 wk. Body weight, muscle mass, changes in maximal isometric contraction, fiber cross-sectional area of the soleus muscle, expression of phosphorylated and total-ERK1/2, phosphorylated-rpS6 Ser235/236, phosphorylated and total Akt, and phosphorylated-rpS6 Ser240/244 were measured. Bfr and Es treatment alone failed to induce muscle hypertrophy and increase the expression of phosphorylated rpS6 Ser240/244. Combined Bfr + Es upregulated muscle mass, increased the fiber cross-sectional area, and increased phosphorylated rpS6 Ser240/244 expression and phosphorylated rpS6 Ser235/236 expression compared with controls. Combined treatment with Bfr and low-current Es can induce muscle hypertrophy via activation of two protein synthesis signaling pathways. This treatment should be introduced for older patients with sarcopenia and others with muscle weakness. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We investigated the acute and chronic effect of low-current electrical stimulation with blood flow restriction on skeletal muscle hypertrophy and the mechanisms controlling the hypertrophic response. Low-current electrical stimulation could not induce skeletal muscle hypertrophy, but a combination treatment did. Blood lactate and growth hormone levels were increased in the early response. Moreover, activation of ERK1/2 and mTOR pathways were observed in both the acute and chronic response, which contribute to muscle hypertrophy.

scholarly journals The effects of practical vascular blood flow restriction training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. P18 ◽  
Author(s):  
John O'Halloran ◽  
Bill Campbell ◽  
Nicholas Martinez ◽  
Shane O’Connor ◽  
Jonathan Fuentes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Skeletal Muscle ◽  
Blood Flow ◽  
Muscle Hypertrophy ◽  
Blood Flow Restriction ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy

scholarly journals Metabolic Stress and Blood Flow Restriction Training as Interventions for Skeletal Muscle Atrophy following Musculoskeletal Injury

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bower
Keyword(s):  
Skeletal Muscle ◽  
Blood Flow ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Muscle Hypertrophy ◽  
Metabolic Stress ◽  
Blood Flow Restriction ◽  
Clinical Population ◽  
Skeletal Muscle Atrophy ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy

Skeletal muscle loss poses significant health issues to both the general clinical population, but also athletes recovering from musculoskeletal (MSK) injury. Whilst resistance training is known to induce skeletal muscle hypertrophy (SMH), 70% of an individual’s one repetition maximum (1RM) is required to elicit such changes. This is not always feasible for the abovementioned populations due to rheumatic limitations and thus, targeting metabolic stress as a stimulus for skeletal muscle hypertrophy may be more favourable than that of mechanical tension. Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) training occludes venous out-flow, whilst sustaining arterial in-flow to the working muscle resulting in a pooling of anaerobic metabolites. As a result, resistance training loads as low as 20% 1RM are capable of eliciting hypertrophic effects equivalent to training at heavier loads, and this is mediated through both endocrine and intramuscular mechanisms. Safe administration of BFR is paramount, especially when prescribing to post-surgical athletes. As such, the coach or clinician in question must take careful consideration regarding pressure application, rest periods and various patient characteristics such as post-surgical timeframe and overall health status.

Effects of combined treatment with blood flow restriction and low current electrical stimulation on capillary regression in the soleus muscle of diabetic rats

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minoru Tanaka ◽  
Takeshi Morifuji ◽  
Ken Sugimoto ◽  
Hiroshi Akasaka ◽  
Taku Fujimoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Flow ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Soleus Muscle ◽  
Combined Treatment ◽  
Hypoxia Inducible Factor ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Diabetic Rats ◽  
Blood Flow Restriction ◽  
Angiogenic Factor ◽  
Flow Restriction

To clarify the preventive effects of low current electrical stimulation (ES) under blood flow restriction (Bfr) on diabetes-associated capillary regression in skeletal muscles, we assessed the changes in three-dimensional capillary architecture and angiogenic factors. Twenty-four Goto-Kakizaki rats were randomly divided into four groups: the sedentary diabetes mellitus (DM), Bfr (DM+Bfr), electrical stimulation (DM+ES), and Bfr plus ES (DM+Bfr+ES) groups. Six healthy Wistar rats were used as age-matched controls. Bfr was performed using pressure cuffs (80 mmHg) around the thighs of the rats, and low-current ES was applied to the calf muscles of the rats. The current intensity was set at 30% of the maximal isometric contraction (24-30 mA). The treatments were delivered three times a week for eight weeks. In the DM group, the capillary diameter and volume of the soleus muscle decreased, and, the anti-angiogenic factor level increased. Furthermore, DM caused an increase in the hypoxia-inducible factor. Individually, Bfr or ES treatments failed to inhibit the DM-associated capillary regression and increase in anti-angiogenic factor. However, combined treatment with Bfr and ES prevented DM-associated capillary regression via inhibition of the increased anti-angiogenic factor and enhancement of interleukin-15 expression, mitochondrial biogenesis factors, and a pro-angiogenic factor. Therefore, DM-associated capillary regression inhibited by the combined treatment may prevent the effects of the increased anti-angiogenic factor and enhance the pro-angiogenic factor.

scholarly journals Muscle hypertrophy following blood flow-restricted, low-force isometric electrical stimulation in rat tibialis anterior: role for muscle hypoxia

2018 ◽  
Vol 125 (1) ◽  
pp. 134-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshiaki Nakajima ◽  
Seiichiro Koide ◽  
Tomohiro Yasuda ◽  
Takaaki Hasegawa ◽  
Tatsuya Yamasoba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Flow ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Exercise Training ◽  
Muscle Hypertrophy ◽  
Glucose Transporter ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Hypertrophic Response ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Ribosomal Protein S6 ◽  
Partial Pressures

Low-force exercise training with blood flow restriction (BFR) elicits muscle hypertrophy as seen typically after higher-force exercise. We investigated the effects of microvascular hypoxia [i.e., low microvascular O2 partial pressures (P mvO2)] during contractions on muscle hypertrophic signaling, growth response, and key muscle adaptations for increasing exercise capacity. Wistar rats were fitted with a cuff placed around the upper thigh and inflated to restrict limb blood flow. Low-force isometric contractions (30 Hz) were evoked via electrical stimulation of the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle. The P mvO2 was determined by phosphorescence quenching. Rats underwent acute and chronic stimulation protocols. Whereas P mvO2 decreased transiently with 30 Hz contractions, simultaneous BFR induced severe hypoxia, reducing P mvO2 lower than present for maximal (100 Hz) contractions. Low-force electrical stimulation (EXER) induced muscle hypertrophy (6.2%, P < 0.01), whereas control group conditions or BFR alone did not. EXER+BFR also induced an increase in muscle mass (11.0%, P < 0.01) and, unique among conditions studied, significantly increased fiber cross-sectional area in the superficial TA ( P < 0.05). Phosphorylation of ribosomal protein S6 was enhanced by EXER+BFR, as were peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator-1α and glucose transporter 4 protein levels. Fibronectin type III domain-containing protein 5, cytochrome c oxidase subunit 4, monocarboxylate transporter 1 (MCT1), and cluster of differentiation 147 increased with EXER alone. EXER+BFR significantly increased MCT1 expression more than EXER alone. These data demonstrate that microvascular hypoxia during contractions is not essential for hypertrophy. However, hypoxia induced via BFR may potentiate the muscle hypertrophic response (as evidenced by the increased superficial fiber cross-sectional area) with increased glucose transporter and mitochondrial biogenesis, which contributes to the pleiotropic effects of exercise training with BFR that culminate in an improved capacity for sustained exercise. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We investigated the effects of low microvascular O2 partial pressures (P mvO2) during contractions on muscle hypertrophic signaling and key elements in the muscle adaptation for increasing exercise capacity. Although demonstrating that muscle hypoxia is not obligatory for the hypertrophic response to low-force, electrically induced muscle contractions, the reduced P mvO2 enhanced ribosomal protein S6 phosphorylation and potentiated the hypertrophic response. Furthermore, contractions with blood flow restriction increased oxidative capacity, glucose transporter, and mitochondrial biogenesis, which are key determinants of the pleiotropic effects of exercise training.

scholarly journals Does Blood Flow Restriction Training Improve Quadriceps Measures After Arthroscopic Knee Surgery? A Critically Appraised Topic

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 221-226
Author(s):  
Erik H. Arve ◽  
Emily Madrak ◽  
Aric J. Warren
Keyword(s):  
Blood Flow ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Knee Surgery ◽  
Blood Flow Restriction ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Arthroscopic Knee Surgery ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Arthroscopic Knee

Focused Clinical Question: Is there evidence to suggest that blood flow restriction (BFR) training improves strength, cross-sectional area, and thigh girth of the quadriceps musculature in patients after arthroscopic surgical procedures of the knee? Clinical Bottom Line: There is moderate consistent, but low-level, evidence supporting the use of BFR training to improve knee extensor muscular outcomes (strength, cross-sectional area, and/or thigh girth) immediately after arthroscopic knee surgery.

Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Combined With Resistance Training or Neuromuscular Electrostimulation on Muscle Cross-Sectional Area

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
João Guilherme Almeida Bergamasco ◽  
Ieda Fernanda Alvarez ◽  
Thais Marina Pires de Campos Biazon ◽  
Carlos Ugrinowitsch ◽  
Cleiton Augusto Libardi
Keyword(s):  
Blood Flow ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Muscle Hypertrophy ◽  
Vastus Lateralis ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Neuromuscular Electrostimulation ◽  
Muscle Cross Sectional Area

Context: Low-load resistance training (LL) and neuromuscular electrostimulation (NES), both combined with blood flow restriction (BFR), emerge as effective strategies to maintain or increase muscle mass. It is well established that LL-BFR promotes similar increases in muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and lower rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and pain compared with traditional resistance training protocols. On the other hand, only 2 studies with conflicting results have investigated the effects of NES-BFR on CSA, RPE, and pain. In addition, no study directly compared LL-BFR and NES-BFR. Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the effects of LL-BFR and NES-BFR on vastus lateralis CSA, RPE, and pain. Individual response for muscle hypertrophy was also compared between protocols. Design: Intrasubject longitudinal study. Setting: University research laboratory. Intervention: Fifteen healthy young males (age = 23 [5] y; weight = 77.6 [11.3] kg; height = 1.76 [0.08] m). Main Outcome Measures: Vastus lateralis CSA was measured through ultrasound at baseline (pre) and after 20 training sessions (post). The RPE and pain responses were obtained through modified 10-point scales, handled during all training sessions. Results: Both protocols demonstrated significant increases in muscle CSA (P < .0001). However, the LL-BFR demonstrated significantly greater CSA changes compared with NES-BFR (LL-BFR = 11.2%, NES-BFR = 4.6%; P < .0001). Comparing individual increases in CSA, 12 subjects (85.7% of the sample) presented greater muscle hypertrophy for LL-BFR than for the NES-BFR protocol. In addition, LL-BFR produced significantly lower RPE and pain responses (P < .0001). Conclusions: The LL-BFR produced significantly greater increases in CSA with significant less RPE and pain than NES-BFR. In addition, LL-BFR resulted in greater individual muscle hypertrophy responses for most subjects compared with NES-BFR.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document