Study enhanced force output and motor unit efficiency in adults with combined NMES-BFR training, indicating LLLT's potential as an ergogenic aid.
Purpose: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) combined with blood flow restriction (BFR) is a promising strategy to prevent muscle atrophy when resistance training is not feasible, though its efficacy may be limited by fatigue. This study examined whether low-level laser therapy (LLLT) can serve as an ergogenic aid during combined NMES-BFR training. Methods: Thirty adults were assigned to BFR or BFR+LLLT groups (n=15). Both groups underwent a 3-week wrist extension training on the non-dominant limb using combined NMES and BFR. The BFR+LLLT group received 60 J of 850 nm laser therapy to the extensor carpi radialis longus (ECRL) before each session; the BFR group received sham treatment. Outcomes included MVC and 40% MVC submaximal force-tracking, with EMG recorded from the ECRL and ECRB muscles. Results: The BFR+LLLT group exhibited a greater post-test/pre-test MVC ratio (1.154 ± 0.127) than the control group (1.040 ± 0.058) ( P = .004). Although the post-/pre-test ratio of force-tracking error did not differ between groups ( P > 0.05), training-related changes in motor unit discharge strategies in the ECRL and ECRB were more pronounced in the BFR+LLLT group. Following training, the BFR+LLLT group exhibited a steeper regression slope between the inter-spike interval and recruitment threshold in both muscles ( P < 0.001), a pattern that was less evident in the BFR group. In addition, the post-/pre-test ratio of the common drive index (CDI) within and between the ECRL and ECRB muscles decreased in the BFR+LLLT group, in contrast to a significant training-related increase observed in the BFR group ( P < 0.001). Conclusions: Pre-exposure to LLLT enhances force output after BFR–NMES training and improves neuromuscular efficiency by increasing motor synergy flexibility, thereby preserving force scaling during submaximal contractions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: