Prescribing Blood Flow‐Restricted Cycling Using Rating of Perceived Exertion Balances the Physiological and Perceptual Demands in Young Healthy Adults

To compare the physiological and perceptual responses during fixed‐power and perceptually regulated cycling, both without and with blood flow restriction (CON PWR , BFR PWR , CON RPE and BFR RPE ). Twelve recreationally active men cycled for 10 min at the power corresponding to the first ventilatory threshold or, for CON RPE and BFR RPE, the perceived exertion level reported during CON PWR . Blood flow restriction was set at 60% of estimated arterial occlusion pressure. Ventilatory measures and heart rate were averaged into 2‐min blocks. Perceived exertion, effort, muscular discomfort and cuff pain were recorded every 2 min (0–10 scale). Blood lactate was measured pre‐exercise, post‐exercise, and 2 min post‐exercise. The BFR PWR trial elicited greater physiological and perceptual responses compared to all other conditions. Oxygen consumption during BFR RPE was lower than CON PWR (−19.2 ± 20.6%, p < 0.001) and CON RPE (−6.7 ± 9.3%, p = 0.007). Heart rate during CON PWR was greater than BFR RPE (8.2 ± 9.8%, p < 0.001) and CON RPE (9.4 ± 6.5%, p < 0.001). Blood lactate concentration was not different between CON PWR , CON RPE and BFR RPE ; yet was greater during fixed‐power compared to fixed‐RPE trials (31.5 ± 25.6%, p < 0.001). Muscular discomfort was not different between BFR RPE and CON PWR (2.4 ± 1.1 au), yet both were greater compared to CON RPE (1.8 ± 1.5 au, p < 0.001). Cuff pain was greater during BFR PWR (3.3 ± 1.7 au) compared to BFR RPE (2.2 ± 1.1 au, p < 0.001). Prescribing aerobic BFR cycling at a fixed power output increases physiological strain, yet discomfort and pain are also heightened, which may limit its use in healthy adults. The fixed‐RPE method appears to balance the physiological and perceptual demands and thus could be a viable alternative if a fixed power output approach is intolerable.