Why the study?
This study compared training loads and internal:external load ratios from an aerobic interval session at the highest perceptually sustainable intensity with and without blood flow restriction.
Does blood flow restriction during high-intensity self-paced cycling alter internal and external training loads in endurance athletes?
Does blood flow restriction during high-intensity self-paced cycling alter internal and external training loads in endurance athletes?
Blood flow restriction during high-intensity aerobic cycling reduces external work done while maintaining similar internal training loads, leading to higher internal-to-external load ratios.
May elevate internal-to-external load ratios during BFR cycling; hypothesis-generating for training monitoring, larger trials needed.
PURPOSE: This study compared training loads and internal:external load ratios from an aerobic interval session at the highest perceptually sustainable intensity with and without blood flow restriction (BFR). METHODS: On separate days, 14 endurance cyclists/triathletes completed four 4-minute self-paced aerobic cycling intervals at their highest sustainable intensity, with and without BFR (60% of arterial occlusion pressure). Internal training load was quantified using 3 training impulses (TRIMP; Banister, Lucia, and Edwards) and sessional ratings of perceived exertion. External load was assessed using total work done (TWD). Training load ratios between all internal loads were calculated relative to TWD. RESULTS: Lucia TRIMP was lower for the BFR compared with non-BFR session (49 [9] vs 53 [8] arbitrary units [au], P = .020, dz = -0.71). No between-conditions differences were observed for Banister TRIMP (P = .068), Edwards TRIMP (P = .072), and training load in sessional ratings of perceived exertion (P = .134). The TWD was lower for the BFR compared with non-BFR session (223 [52] vs 271 [58] kJ, P < .001, dz = -1.27). Ratios were greater for the BFR session compared with non-BFR for Lucia TRIMP:TWD (0.229 [0.056] vs 0.206 [0.056] au, P < .001, dz = 1.21), Edwards TRIMP:TWD (0.396 [0.105] vs 0.370 [0.088] au, P = .031, dz = 0.66), and training load in sessional ratings of perceived exertion:TWD (1.000 [0.266] vs 0.890 [0.275] au, P = .044, dz = 0.60), but not Banister TRIMP:TWD (P = .306). CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners should consider both internal and external loads when monitoring BFR exercise to ensure the demands are appropriately captured. These BFR-induced changes were reflected by the Lucia TRIMP:TWD and Edwards TRIMP:TWD ratio, which could be used to monitor aerobic BFR training loads. The Lucia TRIMP:TWD ratio likely represents BFR-induced changes more appropriately compared with ratios involving either Edwards or Banister TRIMP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Smith et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: