Environmental public-health surveillance systems for chemical incidents

G. Pershagen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04025-3

IF: 202.731

2001-02-10

The Lancet

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Increase in calf post-occlusive blood flow and strength following short-term resistance exercise training with blood flow restriction in young women

Stephen D. Patterson,Richard. A. Ferguson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-009-1309-x

IF: 3.346

2009-12-11

European Journal of Applied Physiology

Abstract:The response of calf muscle strength, resting (Rbf) and post-occlusive (PObf) blood flow were investigated following 4 weeks resistance training with and without blood flow restriction in a matched leg design. Sixteen untrained females performed unilateral plantar-flexion low-load resistance training (LLRT) at either 25% (n = 8) or 50% (n = 8) one-repetition maximum (1 RM). One limb was trained with unrestricted blood flow whilst in the other limb blood flow was restricted with the use of a pressure applied cuff above the knee (110 mmHg). Regardless of the training load, peak PObf, measured using venous occlusion plethysmography increased when LLRT was performed with blood flow restriction compared to no change following LLRT with unrestricted blood flow. A significant increase (P < 0.05) in the area under the blood time–flow curve was also observed following LLRT with blood flow restriction when compared LLRT with unrestricted blood flow. No changes were observed in Rbf between groups following training. Maximal dynamic strength (1 RM), maximal voluntary contraction and isokinetic strength at 0.52 and 1.05 rad s−1 also increased (P < 0.05) by a greater extent following resistance training with blood flow restriction. Moreover, 1 RM increased to a greater extent following training at 50% 1 RM compared to 25% 1 RM. These results suggest that 4 weeks LLRT with blood flow restriction provides a greater stimulus to increase peak PObf as well as strength parameters than LLRT with unrestricted blood flow.

physiology,sport sciences
Very-low-load resistance exercise in the upper body with and without blood flow restriction: cardiovascular outcomes

J. Grant Mouser,Kevin T. Mattocks,Scott J. Dankel,Samuel L. Buckner,Matthew B. Jessee,Zachary W. Bell,Takashi Abe,Jeremy P. Loenneke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2018-0325

2019-03-01

Abstract:It is proposed that, at very low loads, greater blood flow restriction (BFR) pressures might be required for muscular adaptation to occur. The cardiovascular and hyperemic response to very low loads combined with relative levels of BFR is unknown. Ninety-seven participants were recruited and assigned to 1 of 4 exercise conditions: 15% of 1-repetition maximum (1RM) without BFR (15/00), 15% 1RM with BFR at 40% of arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) (15/40), 15% of 1RM with BFR at 80% of AOP (15/80), and 70% of 1RM without BFR (70/00). Participants performed 4 sets of unilateral biceps curls. Blood pressure was measured before and after exercise; brachial artery blood flow was measured before exercise, following the second set, and 1 min following exercise. Systolic blood pressure increased following exercise in all conditions (+10 (11) mm Hg, P < 0.0005). Diastolic pressure increased in all but 70/00 (+2 (11) mm Hg, P = 0.107). Brachial artery blood flow increased following the second set of exercise in all but 15/80 (+43.4 (76.8) mL·min −1 , P = 0.348). One minute following exercise and cuff deflation, there were no differences in blood flow between conditions (P > 0.05). Similarly, artery diameter was increased in all conditions except 15/80 (+0.002 (0.041) cm, P = 0.853) following the second set, and increased in all conditions by 1 min following exercise (P < 0.05). In conclusion, exercise-induced hyperemia is blunted with increasing pressures of BFR. There is a modest increase in blood pressure at very low loads of resistance exercise in the upper body.

nutrition & dietetics,physiology,sport sciences
Physiological Responses to Acute Cycling With Blood Flow Restriction

Matthew A. Kilgas,Tejin Yoon,John McDaniel,Kevin C. Phillips,Steven J. Elmer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.800155

IF: 4

2022-03-11

Frontiers in Physiology

Abstract:Aerobic exercise with blood flow restriction (BFR) can improve muscular function and aerobic capacity. However, the extent to which cuff pressure influences acute physiological responses to aerobic exercise with BFR is not well documented. We compared blood flow, tissue oxygenation, and neuromuscular responses to acute cycling with and without BFR. Ten participants completed four intermittent cycling (6 × 2 min) conditions: low-load cycling (LL), low-load cycling with BFR at 60% of limb occlusion pressure (BFR60), low-load cycling with BFR at 80% of limb occlusion pressure (BFR80), and high-load cycling (HL). Tissue oxygenation, cardiorespiratory, metabolic, and perceptual responses were assessed during cycling and blood flow was measured during recovery periods. Pre- to post-exercise changes in knee extensor function were also assessed. BFR60 and BFR80 reduced blood flow (~33 and ~ 50%, respectively) and tissue saturation index (~5 and ~15%, respectively) when compared to LL (all p < 0.05). BFR60 resulted in lower VO 2 , heart rate, ventilation, and perceived exertion compared to HL (all p < 0.05), whereas BFR80 resulted in similar heart rates and exertion to HL (both p > 0.05). BFR60 and BFR80 elicited greater pain compared to LL and HL (all p < 0.05). After exercise, knee extensor torque decreased by ~18 and 40% for BFR60 and BFR80, respectively (both p < 0.05), and was compromised mostly through peripheral mechanisms. Cycling with BFR increased metabolic stress, decreased blood flow, and impaired neuromuscular function. However, only BFR60 did so without causing very severe pain (>8 on pain intensity scale). Cycling with BFR at moderate pressure may serve as a potential alternative to traditional high-intensity aerobic exercise.

physiology
Effects of load matched isokinetic versus isotonic blood flow restricted exercise on neuromuscular and muscle function

Paola M Rivera,Christopher E Proppe,David Gonzalez-Rojas,Aaron Wizenberg,Ethan C Hill

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2023.2184724

Abstract:The purpose of this investigation was to examine neuromuscular function, muscle fatigue, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and muscle swelling between isokinetic and isotonic leg extensions with blood flow restriction (BFR). Fourteen (21 ± 2years; 160cm ± 3.8; 61kg ± 9.1) trained women performed 75 (1 × 30,3 × 15) submaximal (30% of maximal strength), unilateral, isokinetic and isotonic leg extensions with BFR (60% of total arterial occlusion pressure). Before and after exercise, subjects performed maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC) and muscle thickness (MT) was assessed with ultrasound. RPE was recorded across all sets and surface electromyography (EMG) was assessed during the MVIC muscle actions. Separate repeated measures ANOVAs were used to examine MVIC, MT, RPE and neuromuscular function. There were greater reductions in MVIC torque and EMG mean power frequency following isotonic (46.2 ± 17.1%; 16.4 ± 7.9%) than isokinetic (17.9 ± 10.9%;6.5 ± 6.3%). RPE was also higher during isotonic (7.5 ± 2.2), than isokinetic (5.7 ± 1.9). There were no differences in EMG amplitude or MT increases (20 ± 2.1%) between conditions. Isotonic BFR elicited greater fatigue-induced decreases in muscular strength and greater RPE than isokinetic BFR, but similar MT and muscle excitation responses for both conditions. Therefore, both isokinetic and isotonic may induce similar acute physiological responses, but isotonic BFR was associated with greater muscle fatigue and perceived effort.HighlightsExercise modality affects the fatigue and perceptual responses when applying blood flow restriction.Despite greater utility, isotonic blood flow restriction was associated greater fatigue and perceived effort.Isotonic and isokinetic blood flow restriction elicited comparable neural changes.
Blood flow in humans following low-load exercise with and without blood flow restriction

J. Grant Mouser,Gilberto C. Laurentino,Scott J. Dankel,Samuel L. Buckner,Matthew B. Jessee,Brittany R. Counts,Kevin T. Mattocks,Jeremy P. Loenneke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2017-0102

2017-11-01

Abstract:Blood flow restriction (BFR) in combination with exercise has been used to increase muscle size and strength using relatively low loads (20%–30% 1-repetition maximum (1RM)). In research, the range of applied pressures based on a percentage of arterial occlusion pressure (AOP), is wide. The purpose of the study is to measure the blood flow response before exercise, following each set of exercise, and postexercise to low-load elbow flexion combined with no restriction (NOBFR), 40% of AOP (40BFR), and 80% of AOP (80BFR). One hundred and fifty-two participants volunteered; 140 completed the protocol (women = 75, men = 65). Participants were counter-balanced into 1 of 3 conditions. Following AOP and 1RM measurement, ultrasound was used to measure standing blood flow at rest in the right brachial artery. Participants performed 4 sets of elbow flexion at 30% 1RM. Blood flow was measured between sets and at 1 and 5 min postexercise. Blood flow decreased following inflation, with no difference between conditions (p < 0.001). Men had greater blood flow than women in all conditions at all time points (p 40BFR > 80BFR, p < 0.001). Blood flow increased from rest to after set 1 regardless of condition. Following cuff deflation, blood flow increased in both the 80BFR and 40BFR conditions. The reduction in hyperemia during BFR is pressure-dependent. Contrary to previous investigations, blood flow was increased above baseline following exercise.
Experience in the surgical management of Crohn's disease.

M. Ihász,E. Mester,M. Réfi

1975-08-01

Abstract:
Cytotoxic and NF-κB inhibitory sesquiterpene lactones from Piptocoma rufescens.

Yulin Ren,U. M. Acuña,Francisco Jiménez,Ricardo García,Melciades Mejía,H. Chai,J. Gallucci,N. Farnsworth,D. Soejarto,Esperanza J Carcache de Blanco,A. Kinghorn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TET.2012.01.061

IF: 2.388

2012-03-25

Tetrahedron

Abstract:
Stem fracture after total facet replacement in the lumbar spine: a report of two cases and review of the literature.

D. Palmer,S. Inceoglu,Wayne Cheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2011.06.002

IF: 4.297

2011-07-01

The Spine Journal

Abstract:
Acute neuromuscular, cardiovascular, and muscle oxygenation responses to low-intensity aerobic interval exercises with blood flow restriction

Colin Lavigne,Valentin Mons,Maxime Grange,Grégory M Blain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1113/EP091742

Abstract:We investigated the influence of short- and long-interval cycling exercise with blood flow restriction (BFR) on neuromuscular fatigue, shear stress and muscle oxygenation, potent stimuli to BFR-training adaptations. During separate sessions, eight individuals performed short- (24 × 60 s/30 s; SI) or long-interval (12 × 120 s/60 s; LI) trials on a cycle ergometer, matched for total work. One leg exercised with (BFR-leg) and the other without (CTRL-leg) BFR. Quadriceps fatigue was quantified using pre- to post-interval changes in maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), potentiated twitch force (QT) and voluntary activation (VA). Shear rate was measured by Doppler ultrasound at cuff release post-intervals. Vastus lateralis tissue oxygenation was measured by near-infrared spectroscopy during exercise. Following the initial interval, significant (P < 0.05) declines in MVC and QT were found in both SI and LI, which were more pronounced in the BFR-leg, and accounted for approximately two-thirds of the total reduction at exercise termination. In the BFR-leg, reductions in MVC (-28 ± 15%), QT (-42 ± 17%), and VA (-15 ± 17%) were maximal at exercise termination and persisted up to 8 min post-exercise. Exercise-induced muscle deoxygenation was greater (P < 0.001) in the BFR-leg than CTRL-leg and perceived pain was more in LI than SI (P < 0.014). Cuff release triggered a significant (P < 0.001) shear rate increase which was consistent across trials. Exercise-induced neuromuscular fatigue in the BFR-leg exceeded that in the CTRL-leg and was predominantly of peripheral origin. BFR also resulted in diminished muscle oxygenation and elevated shear stress. Finally, short-interval trials resulted in comparable neuromuscular and haemodynamic responses with reduced perceived pain compared to long-intervals.
Muscle Adaptations to High-Load Training and Very Low-Load Training With and Without Blood Flow Restriction

Matthew B. Jessee,Samuel L. Buckner,J. Grant Mouser,Kevin T. Mattocks,Scott J. Dankel,Takashi Abe,Zachary W. Bell,John P. Bentley,Jeremy P. Loenneke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01448

IF: 4

2018-10-16

Frontiers in Physiology

Abstract:An inability to lift loads great enough to disrupt muscular blood flow may impair the ability to fatigue muscles, compromising the hypertrophic response. It is unknown what level of blood flow restriction (BFR) pressure, if any, is necessary to reach failure at very low-loads [i.e., 15% one-repetition maximum (1RM)]. The purpose of this study was to investigate muscular adaptations following resistance training with a very low-load alone (15/0), with moderate BFR (15/40), or with high BFR (15/80), and compare them to traditional high-load (70/0) resistance training. Using a within/between subject design, healthy young participants (n = 40) performed four sets of unilateral knee extension to failure (up to 90 repetitions/set), twice per week for 8 weeks. Data presented as mean change (95% CI). There was a condition by time interaction for 1RM (p < 0.001), which increased for 70/0 [3.15 (2.04,4.25) kg] only. A condition by time interaction (p = 0.028) revealed greater changes in endurance for 15/80 [6 (4,8) repetitions] compared to 15/0 [4 (2,6) repetitions] and 70/0 [4 (2,5) repetitions]. There was a main effect of time for isometric MVC [change = 10.51 (3.87,17.16) Nm, p = 0.002] and isokinetic MVC at 180°/s [change = 8.61 (5.54,11.68) Nm, p < 0.001], however there was no change in isokinetic MVC at 60°/s [2.45 (-1.84,6.74) Nm, p = 0.261]. Anterior and lateral muscle thickness was assessed at 30, 40, 50, and 60% of the upper leg. There was no condition by time interaction for muscle thickness sites (all p ≥ 0.313). There was a main effect of time for all sites, with increases over time (all p < 0.001). With the exception of the 30% lateral site (p = 0.059) there was also a main effect of condition (all p < 0.001). Generally, 70/0 was greater. Average weekly volume increased for all conditions across the 8 weeks, and was greatest for 70/0 followed by 15/0, 15/40, then 15/80. With the exception of 1RM, changes in strength and muscle size were similar regardless of load or restriction. The workload required to elicit these changes lowered with increased BFR pressure. These findings may be pertinent to rehabilitative settings, future research, and program design.

physiology
Blood flow restriction increases motor unit firing rates and input excitation of the biceps brachii during a moderate-load muscle action

Alex A. Olmos,Tony R. Montgomery,Kylie N. Sears,Brenden L. Roth,Lyric D. Richardson,Taylor K. Dinyer-McNeely,Shane M. Hammer,Haley C. Bergstrom,Ethan C. Hill,Pasquale J. Succi,Sean Lubiak,Michael A. Trevino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2024.2413721

IF: 3.9428

2024-11-01

Journal of Sports Sciences

Abstract:This study examined the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) on motor unit (MU) behaviour of the biceps brachii (BB) during a single non-exhausting submaximal muscle action. Twenty adults performed maximal voluntary contractions (MVCs) of the elbow flexors, followed by an isometric trapezoidal muscle action at 40% MVC during BFR and control (CON) visits. Surface electromyographic signals recorded from the BB during the 40% MVCs were decomposed. Recruitment thresholds (RTs), MU action potential amplitudes (MUAP AMPS ), initial firing rates (IFRs), mean firing rates (MFRs) at steady force, and normalized EMG amplitude (N-EMG RMS ) were analysed. Y-intercepts and slopes were calculated for the MUAP AMP , IFR, and MFR vs. RT relationships. Y-intercepts for the IFR and MFR vs. RT relationships and N-EMG RMS increased during BFR ( p < 0.05) collapsed across sex. The slopes for the IFR and MFR vs. RT relationships decreased during BFR ( p < 0.05) collapsed across sex. The y-intercepts and slopes for the MUAP AMP vs. RT relationships were not different ( p > 0.05) between treatments or sex. BFR during the 40% MVC increased IFRs, MFRs, and N-EMG RMS . However, the similar MUAP AMPS observed between treatments may suggest that a greater load is necessary to recruit additional MUs when performing a single submaximal short-duration muscle action with BFR.

sport sciences
The Acute Physiological Responses to Traditional vs. Practical Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise in Untrained Men and Women

Eduardo D. S. Freitas,Bianca R. A. Galletti,Karolina J. Koziol,Ryan M. Miller,Aaron D. Heishman,Christopher D. Black,Debra Bemben,Michael G. Bemben

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.577224

IF: 4

2020-09-29

Frontiers in Physiology

Abstract:This study compared the acute physiological responses of traditional and practical blood flow restriction resistance exercise (tBFR and pBFR, respectively) and high- and low-load resistance exercise without BFR (HL and LL, respectively), as well as the potential sex differences within the aforementioned exercise methods. Fourteen men and fifteen women randomly completed the following experimental conditions: (1) tBFR, consisting of four sets of 30-15-15-15 repetitions of the bilateral horizontal leg press and knee extension exercises, at 30% of one-repetition maximum (1-RM), with a 13.5 cm wide pneumatic cuff placed at the most proximal portion of each thigh and inflated to a pressure equivalent to 50% of the participant's total occlusion pressure; (2) pBFR, which was the same as the tBFR condition, except that an elastic band wrapped around the proximal portion of each thigh at a tightness of 7 on a 0 to 10 perceived pressure scale was used to reduce blood flow; (3) LL, same as the tBFR and pBFR protocols, except that no BFR was applied; and (4) HL, consisting of 3 sets of 10 repetitions at 80% of 1-RM, with the same 1-min rest interval between sets and a 3-min rest period between exercises. At baseline, immediately post-, 5 min post-, and 15 min post-exercise, whole-blood lactate (WBL), indices of muscle swelling (muscle thickness and thigh circumference), hematocrit and plasma volume changes, were measured as well as superficial electromyography (sEMG) amplitude during exercise. There were no significant (p > 0.05) differences between the tBFR and pBFR exercise protocols for any of the physiological parameters assessed. However, significantly greater (p < 0.05) WBL and sEMG values were observed for HL compared to the remaining exercise conditions. Finally, males displayed greater WBL levels than females at 15 min post-exercise. Interestingly, males also displayed significantly (p < 0.05) greater sEMG amplitude than females within the low-load trials during leg press, but no significant (p < 0.05) sex differences were observed during knee extension. In conclusion, tBFR and pBFR seemed to be capable of inducing the same acute physiological responses. Furthermore, males displayed greater responses than females for some of the physiological parameters measured.

physiology
Blood flow restriction augments exercise-induced pressure pain thresholds over repetition and effort matched conditions

William B. Hammert,Jun Seob Song,Yujiro Yamada,Ryo Kataoka,Vickie Wong,Robert W. Spitz,Aldo Seffrin,Anna Kang,Jeremy P. Loenneke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2024.2321012

IF: 3.9428

2024-02-29

Journal of Sports Sciences

Abstract:We sought to determine the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) on exercise-induced hypoalgesia, specifically using low-load (LL) resistance exercise (30% 1RM) protocols that accounted for each individual's local muscular endurance capabilities. Forty-four participants completed four conditions: (1) 70% of maximal BFR repetitions with blood flow restriction (LL+BFR exercise); (2) 70% maximal BFR repetitions without LL+BFR (LL exercise); (3) 70% maximal free flow repetitions (LL+EFFORT exercise); (4) time-matched, non-exercise control (CON). Pressure pain threshold (PPT) was measured before and after exercise. Ischaemic pain threshold and tolerance was assessed only at post. The change in upper body PPT was greater for LL+BFR exercise compared to LL exercise [difference of 0.15 (0.35) kg/cm 2 ], LL+EFFORT exercise [difference of 0.23 (0.45) kg/cm 2 ], and the CON condition. The change in lower body PPT was greater for LL+BFR exercise compared to LL exercise [difference of 0.40 (0.55) kg/cm 2 ], LL+EFFORT exercise [difference of 0.36 (0.62) kg/cm 2 ], and the CON condition. Ischaemic pain thresholds and tolerances did not change. Submaximal exercise with BFR resulted in systemic increases in PPT but had no influence on ischaemic pain sensitivity. This effect is likely unique to BFR as we did not see changes in the effort matched free flow condition.

sport sciences
Blood flow restriction augments the cross-education effect of isometric handgrip training

Vickie Wong,Robert W. Spitz,Jun Seob Song,Yujiro Yamada,Ryo Kataoka,William B. Hammert,Anna Kang,Aldo Seffrin,Zachary W. Bell,Jeremy P. Loenneke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-023-05386-y

IF: 3.346

2024-01-02

European Journal of Applied Physiology

Abstract:IntroductionThe application of blood flow restriction (BFR) to low-intensity exercise may be able to increase strength not only in the trained limb but also in the homologous untrained limb. Whether this effect is repeatable and how that change compares to that observed with higher intensity exercise is unknown.PurposeExamine whether low-intensity training with BFR enhances the cross-education of strength compared to exercise without BFR and maximal efforts.MethodsA total of 179 participants completed the 6-week study, with 135 individuals performing isometric handgrip training over 18 sessions. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: 1) low-intensity (4 × 2 min of 30% MVC; LI, n = 47), 2) low-intensity with blood flow restriction (LI + 50% arterial occlusion pressure; LI-BFR, n = 41), 3) maximal effort (4 × 5 s of 100% MVC; MAX, n = 47), and 4) non-exercise control (CON, n = 44).ResultsLI-BFR was the only group that observed a cross-education in strength (CON: 0.64 SD 2.9 kg, LI: 0.95 SD 3.6 kg, BFR-LI: 2.7 SD 3.3 kg, MAX: 0.80 SD 3.1 kg). In the trained hand, MAX observed the greatest change in strength (4.8 SD 3.3 kg) followed by LI-BFR (2.8 SD 4.0 kg). LI was not different from CON. Muscle thickness did not change in the untrained arm, but ulna muscle thickness was increased within the trained arm of the LI-BFR group (0.06 SD 0.11 cm).ConclusionIncorporating BFR into low-intensity isometric training led to a cross-education effect on strength that was greater than all other groups (including high-intensity training).

physiology,sport sciences
The Discrepancy Between External and Internal Load/Intensity during Blood Flow Restriction Exercise: Understanding Blood Flow Restriction Pressure as Modulating Factor

Robert Bielitzki,Martin Behrens,Tom Behrendt,Alexander Franz,Christoph Centner,Luke Hughes,Stephen D Patterson,Johnny Owens,Michael Behringer,Lutz Schega

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-024-00759-9

2024-09-04

Abstract:Physical exercise induces acute psychophysiological responses leading to chronic adaptations when the exercise stimulus is applied repeatedly, at sufficient time periods, and with appropriate magnitude. To maximize long-term training adaptations, it is crucial to control and manipulate the external load and the resulting psychophysiological strain. Therefore, scientists have developed a theoretical framework that distinguishes between the physical work performed during exercise (i.e., external load/intensity) and indicators of the body's psychophysiological response (i.e., internal load/intensity). However, the application of blood flow restriction (BFR) during exercise with low external loads/intensities (e.g., ≤ 30% of the one-repetition-maximum, ≤ 50% of maximum oxygen uptake) can induce physiological and perceptual responses, which are commonly associated with high external loads/intensities. This current opinion aimed to emphasize the mismatch between external and internal load/intensity when BFR is applied during exercise. In this regard, there is evidence that BFR can be used to manipulate both external load/intensity (by reducing total work when exercise is performed to exhaustion) and internal load/intensity (by leading to higher physiological and perceptual responses compared to exercise performed with the same external load/intensity without BFR). Furthermore, it is proposed to consider BFR as an additional exercise determinant, given that the amount of BFR pressure can determine not only the internal but also external load/intensity. Finally, terminological recommendations for the use of the proposed terms in the scientific context and for practitioners are given, which should be considered when designing, reporting, discussing, and presenting BFR studies, exercise, and/or training programs.
A Moderate Blood Flow Restriction Pressure Does Not Affect Maximal Strength or Neuromuscular Responses

Sean M Lubiak,John E Lawson,David H Gonzalez Rojas,Christopher E Proppe,Paola M Rivera,Shane M Hammer,Michael A Trevino,Taylor K Dinyer-McNeely,Tony R Montgomery Jr,Alex A Olmos,Kylie N Sears,Haley C Bergstrom,Pasquale J Succi,Joshua L Keller,Ethan C Hill

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004907

2024-08-14

Abstract:Lubiak, SM, Lawson, JE, Gonzalez Rojas, DH, Proppe, CE, Rivera, PM, Hammer, SM, Trevino, MA, Dinyer-McNeely, TK, Montgomery, TR, Olmos, AA, Sears, KN, Bergstrom, HC, Succi, PJ, Keller, JL, and Hill, EC. A moderate blood flow restriction pressure does not affect maximal strength or neuromuscular responses. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2024-The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) applied at 60% of total arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) on maximal strength. Eleven college-aged female subjects completed two testing sessions of maximal unilateral concentric, isometric, and eccentric leg extension muscle actions performed with and without BFR. Separate 3 (mode [isometric, concentric, eccentric]) × 2 (condition [BFR, no BFR]) × 2 (visit [2, 3]) repeated-measures analysis of variances were used to examine mean differences in maximal strength, neuromuscular function, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and pain. For maximal strength (collapsed across condition and visit), isometric (128.5 ± 22.7 Nm) and eccentric (114.5 ± 35.4 Nm) strength were greater than concentric maximal strength (89.3 ± 22.3 Nm) (p < 0.001-0.041). Muscle excitation relative (%) to isometric non-BFR was greater during the concentric (108.6 ± 31.5%) than during the eccentric (86.7 ± 29.2%) (p = 0.045) assessments but not different than isometric (93.4 ± 17.9%) (p = 0.109) assessments, collapsed across condition and visit. For RPE, there was an interaction such that RPE was greater during non-BFR (4.3 ± 1.7) than during BFR (3.7 ± 1.7) (p = 0.031) during the maximal concentric strength assessments. Furthermore, during maximal strength assessments performed with BFR, isometric RPE (5.8 ± 1.9) was greater than concentric (3.7 ± 1.7) (p = 0.005) and eccentric (4.6 ± 1.9) (p = 0.009) RPE. Finally, pain was greater during the isometric (2.8 ± 2.1 au) than during the concentric (1.8 ± 1.5 au) (p = 0.016), but not eccentric, maximal strength assessments (2.1 ± 1.6 au) (p = 0.126), collapsed across condition and visit. The application of BFR at 60% AOP did not affect concentric, isometric, or eccentric maximal strength or neuromuscular function. Trainers, clinicians, and researchers can prescribe exercise interventions relative to a restricted (when using a moderate AOP) or nonrestricted assessment of maximal strength.
An examination of acute psychophysiological responses following blood flow restriction exercise using a traditional research device or novel, automated system

Enrique N Moreno,Elias C Figueroa,Andrew W Heath,Samuel L Buckner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6579/ad548c

2024-06-07

Physiological Measurement

Abstract:Objective: To compare the acute psychophysiological responses to blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise using a traditional research device or novel, automated system. Methods: Forty-four resistance trained individuals performed four sets of unilateral elbow flexion exercise [30% one-repetition maximum (1RM)] to volitional failure using two distinct restrictive devices [SmartCuffs PRO BFR Model (SMARTCUFF), Hokanson E20 Rapid Inflation device (HOKANSON)] and with two levels of BFR [40% limb occlusion pressure (LOP), 80% LOP]. Blood pressure (BP), muscle thickness (MT), and isometric strength (ISO) were assessed prior to and following exercise. Perceptual responses [ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), discomfort] were assessed prior to exercise and following each exercise set. Main Results: Data are displayed as means (SD). Immediately following exercise with 40% LOP, there were no statistical differences between devices for BP, MT, and ISO. However, only following Set 1 of exercise, RPE was greater with SMARTCUFF compared to HOKANSON (p < 0.05). In addition, only following Set 2 of exercise, discomfort was greater with HOKANSON compared to SMARTCUFF (p < 0.001). Immediately following exercise with 80% LOP, there were no statistical differences between devices for BP, MT, and ISO. However, only following Set 4 of exercise, RPE was greater with HOKANSON compared to SMARTCUFF (p < 0.05). In addition, following all exercise sets, discomfort was greater with HOKANSON compared to SMARTCUFF (p < 0.001). Significance: The present study provides valuable insight into the efficacy of a novel, automated BFR system (SMARTCUFF) eliciting comparable acute physiological responses to BFR exercise and in some cases favorable psychological responses when compared to a traditional research device (HOKANSON).

engineering, biomedical,biophysics,physiology
Low-load resistance training to task failure with and without blood flow restriction: muscular functional and structural adaptations

Christopher Pignanelli,Heather L. Petrick,Fatemeh Keyvani,George J. F. Heigenhauser,Joe Quadrilatero,Graham P. Holloway,Jamie F. Burr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00243.2019

2020-02-01

Abstract:The application of blood flow restriction (BFR) during resistance exercise is increasingly recognized for its ability to improve rehabilitation and for its effectiveness in increasing muscle hypertrophy and strength among healthy populations. However, direct comparison of the skeletal muscle adaptations to low-load resistance exercise (LL-RE) and low-load BFR resistance exercise (LL-BFR) performed to task failure is lacking. Using a within-subject design, we examined whole muscle group and skeletal muscle adaptations to 6 wk of LL-RE and LL-BFR training to repetition failure. Muscle strength and size outcomes were similar for both types of training, despite ~33% lower total exercise volume (load × repetition) with LL-BFR than LL-RE (28,544 ± 1,771 vs. 18,949 ± 1,541 kg, P = 0.004). After training, only LL-BFR improved the average power output throughout the midportion of a voluntary muscle endurance task. Specifically, LL-BFR training sustained an 18% greater power output from baseline and resulted in a greater change from baseline than LL-RE (19 ± 3 vs. 3 ± 4 W, P = 0.008). This improvement occurred despite histological analysis revealing similar increases in capillary content of type I muscle fibers following LL-RE and LL-BFR training, which was primarily driven by increased capillary contacts (4.53 ± 0.23 before training vs. 5.33 ± 0.27 and 5.17 ± 0.25 after LL-RE and LL-BFR, respectively, both P < 0.05). Moreover, maximally supported mitochondrial respiratory capacity increased only in the LL-RE leg by 30% from baseline ( P = 0.006). Overall, low-load resistance training increased indexes of muscle oxidative capacity and strength, which were not further augmented with the application of BFR. However, performance on a muscle endurance test was improved following BFR training.
Acute impact of autoregulation of applied blood flow restriction pressures on bilateral single-joint upper limb resistance exercise

Nicholas Rolnick,Victor S. De Queiros,Masoud Moghaddam,Lisa Marquette,Susannah Taylor,Jessica Walters,Brent Fedorko,Timothy Werner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2024.2416793

IF: 3.9428

2024-10-29

Journal of Sports Sciences

Abstract:To investigate the acute effects of 4 sets of autoregulated (AR-BFR) versus non-autoregulated (NAR-BFR) applied pressures during blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance exercise to volitional failure compared with low-load exercise without BFR. A randomized crossover design study was conducted on 32 healthy adults (20.8 ± 2.3 years; 11 females). Outcome measures were as follows: (1) arterial stiffness, (2) peak perceptual responses and likelihood to perform again, and (3) performance. Results: Post-exercise changes in central and brachial diastolic blood pressure were decreased in all groups. Post-exercise supine systolic blood pressure in no-BFR increased (mean difference (MD) = 4 ± 1 mmHg, 95% CI (1–7), p = 0.003, η 2 = 0.13). Total repetitions performed and volume workload were similar between BFR conditions but less than no-BFR. AR-BFR reported significantly higher exertion (MD = 0.53 ± 0.2, 95% CI (0.04–1.0), p = 0.03, η 2 = 0.19) than other conditions, and induced greater discomfort (MD = 2.50 ± 0.36, 95% CI (1.63–3.37), p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.28) than no-BFR. Conclusion: Biceps curl exercise to volitional failure appears to induce negligible arterial stiffness or blood pressure changes regardless of the application of autoregulation, yet autoregulation appears to enhance the perceptual response to BFR exercise compared to NAR-BFR without impacting exercise performance.

sport sciences
Blood Flow Restriction Therapy Impact on Musculoskeletal Strength and Mass

Steven R. Dayton,Simon J. Padanilam,Tyler C. Sylvester,Michael J. Boctor,Vehniah K. Tjong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/26350254211032681

2021-09-01

Video Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract: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.

Environmental public-health surveillance systems for chemical incidents

Increase in calf post-occlusive blood flow and strength following short-term resistance exercise training with blood flow restriction in young women

Very-low-load resistance exercise in the upper body with and without blood flow restriction: cardiovascular outcomes

Physiological Responses to Acute Cycling With Blood Flow Restriction

Effects of load matched isokinetic versus isotonic blood flow restricted exercise on neuromuscular and muscle function

Blood flow in humans following low-load exercise with and without blood flow restriction

Experience in the surgical management of Crohn's disease.

Cytotoxic and NF-κB inhibitory sesquiterpene lactones from Piptocoma rufescens.

Stem fracture after total facet replacement in the lumbar spine: a report of two cases and review of the literature.

Acute neuromuscular, cardiovascular, and muscle oxygenation responses to low-intensity aerobic interval exercises with blood flow restriction

Muscle Adaptations to High-Load Training and Very Low-Load Training With and Without Blood Flow Restriction

Blood flow restriction increases motor unit firing rates and input excitation of the biceps brachii during a moderate-load muscle action

The Acute Physiological Responses to Traditional vs. Practical Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise in Untrained Men and Women

Blood flow restriction augments exercise-induced pressure pain thresholds over repetition and effort matched conditions

Blood flow restriction augments the cross-education effect of isometric handgrip training

The Discrepancy Between External and Internal Load/Intensity during Blood Flow Restriction Exercise: Understanding Blood Flow Restriction Pressure as Modulating Factor

A Moderate Blood Flow Restriction Pressure Does Not Affect Maximal Strength or Neuromuscular Responses

An examination of acute psychophysiological responses following blood flow restriction exercise using a traditional research device or novel, automated system

Low-load resistance training to task failure with and without blood flow restriction: muscular functional and structural adaptations

Acute impact of autoregulation of applied blood flow restriction pressures on bilateral single-joint upper limb resistance exercise

Blood Flow Restriction Therapy Impact on Musculoskeletal Strength and Mass