Key result
Blood flow restriction during sprint interval training drives a ~90% greater peak power decline vs control.
Why the study?
This study aimed to examine the acute effects of continuous and intermittent blood flow restriction during sprint interval training on muscle oxygenation, sprint performance, and ratings of perceived exertion.
Does continuous or intermittent blood flow restriction affect sprint interval performance and muscle oxygen responses in healthy men?
RCT (n=15)
random order
Does continuous or intermittent blood flow restriction affect sprint interval performance and muscle oxygen responses in healthy men?
Absolute Event Rate: 25.5% vs 13.4%
Applying blood flow restriction during sprint interval training induces greater decrements in peak power and total work, with continuous restriction causing the greatest metabolite accumulation.
BFR during sprint intervals heightens acute power loss; extends evidence on restriction effects during high-intensity training in healthy men.
Wizenberg, AM, Gonzalez-Rojas, D, Rivera, PM, Proppe, CE, Laurel, KP, Stout, JR, Fukuda, DH, Billaut, F, Keller, JL, and Hill, EC. Acute effects of continuous and intermittent blood flow restriction on sprint interval performance and muscle oxygen responses. J Strength Cond Res 37(10): e546-e554, 2023-This investigation aimed to examine the acute effects of continuous and intermittent blood flow restriction (CBFR and IBFR, respectively) during sprint interval training (SIT) on muscle oxygenation, sprint performance, and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE). Fifteen men (22.6 ± 2.4 years; 176 ± 6.3 cm; 80.0 ± 12.6 kg) completed in random order a SIT session with CBFR, IBFR (applied during rest), and no blood flow restriction (NoBFR). Each SIT session consisted of two 30-second all-out sprint tests separated by 2 minutes. Peak power (PP), total work (TW), sprint decrement score (S dec ), RPE, and muscle oxygenation were measured during each sprint. A p value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. PP decreased to a greater extent from sprint 1 to sprint 2 during CBFR (25.5 ± 11.9%) and IBFR (23.4 ± 9.3%) compared with NoBFR (13.4 ± 8.6%). TW was reduced similarly (17,835.6 ± 966.2 to 12,687.2 ± 675.2 J) from sprint 1 to sprint 2 for all 3 conditions, but TW was lower (collapsed across time) for CBFR (14,320.7 ± 769.1 J) than IBFR (15,548.0 ± 840.5 J) and NoBFR (15,915.4 ± 771.5 J). There were no differences in S dec (84.3 ± 1.7%, 86.1 ± 1.5%, and 87.2 ± 1.1% for CBFR, IBFR, and NoBFR, respectively) or RPE, which increased from sprint 1 (8.5 ± 0.3) to sprint 2 (9.7 ± 0.1). Collective muscle oxygenation responses increased across time and were similar among conditions, whereas increases in deoxy[heme] and total[heme] were greatest for CBFR. Applying BFR during SIT induced greater decrements in PP, and CBFR resulted in greater decrements in work across repeated sprints. The larger increases in deoxy[heme] and total[heme] for CBFR suggested it may induce greater metabolite accumulation than IBFR and NoBFR when combined with SIT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wizenberg et al. (2023) reported an RCT. Continuous and intermittent blood flow restriction vs. No blood flow restriction was evaluated on Peak power decrease from sprint 1 to sprint 2. Applying continuous or intermittent blood flow restriction during sprint interval training induced greater decrements in peak power (25.5% and 23.4% vs 13.4%) compared with no restriction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: