What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: RCT. Population: Healthy resistance-trained individuals (n=14). Intervention: Blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise vs. Within-subject comparisons across different load and pressure combinations. Primary outcome: Change in arterial occlusion pressure (ΔAOP) (p=<0.001).

June 26, 2017Open Access

The Cardiovascular and Perceptual Response to Very Low Load Blood Flow Restricted Exercise

Q: What are the key findings of this study?

Blood flow restriction exercise with very low loads significantly augmented cardiovascular and perceptual responses when increasing the load from 10% to 20% 1RM and pressure from 40% to 80% AOP.

MJMatthew B. JesseeUniversity of Mississippi SDScott J. DankelRowan University SBSamuel L. BucknerUniversity of South Florida

Key Result

Blood flow restriction exercise with very low loads significantly augmented cardiovascular and perceptual responses when increasing the load from 10% to 20% 1RM and pressure from 40% to 80% AOP.

Study Design

Type

RCT (n=14)

Blinding

Open-label

Randomization

Random sequence generator

Multicenter

Structured PICO

How do different load and pressure combinations during blood flow restriction exercise affect cardiovascular and perceptual responses?

Population

14 healthy, resistance-trained young adults (aged 18-35) underwent various combinations of very low load resistance exercise and blood flow restriction to assess cardiovascular and perceptual responses.

Intervention

Blood flow restriction (BFR) elbow flexion using 10, 15 and 20% 1RM with 40 and 80% arterial occlusion pressure (AOP)

Comparator

Different combinations of load (10, 15, 20% 1RM) and pressure (40, 80% AOP)

Outcome

Arterial occlusion pressure (AOP), perceived exertion (RPE), and discomfortsurrogate

When performing blood flow restriction exercise with very low loads, cardiovascular and perceptual responses are augmented by increasing the load and applying higher relative pressure.

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 62% vs 21%

p-value: p=<0.001

Limitations

No quantification of blood flow, only the detection of blood flow cessation with a handheld Doppler probe.
The cuff used to determine the cardiovascular response was a narrow 5 cm cuff, which may differ from clinical blood pressure cuffs.
Testing two conditions in the same day could have residual effects, though washout periods were used.

Abstract

Abstract This study sought to compare cardiovascular and perceptual responses to blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise using various pressure and load combinations. Fourteen participants completed four sets of BFR elbow flexion using 10, 15 and 20% 1RM with 40 and 80% arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). AOP was measured before and after exercise. Perceived exertion (RPE) and discomfort were assessed before exercise and after each set. Data presented as mean (95% CI), except for RPE and discomfort: 25th, 50th, 75th percentiles. AOP increased post-exercise (p<0.001) with larger magnitudes seen when increasing load and pressure (p<0.001) e. g., 10/40 ΔAOP: 21 (10, 32) mmHg vs. 20/80 ΔAOP: 62 (45, 78) mmHg, which also augmented RPE (p<0.001) e. g., 4th set 10/40: (7, 8.5, 12) vs. 4th set 20/80: (12.75, 15.5, 17.25) and discomfort (p<0.001) e. g., 4th set 10/40: (0.75, 2, 4.25) vs. 4th set 20/80: (4.25, 6, 8,). Volume increased via greater loads (p<0.001), and participants only reached failure during 20% 1RM conditions 20/40: 74 (74, 75) repetitions; 20/80: 71 (68, 75) repetitions. When performing BFR exercise with very low loads the magnitudes of the cardiovascular and perceptual responses are augmented by increasing the load and by applying a higher relative pressure.

AI에게 질문

Bookmark

View Full Paper