Key result
Low-intensity resistance training reduces perceived exertion by ~1.3 points compared to high-intensity training.
Why the study?
The acute comparative effects of HIRT, LIRT, and LIRT-BFR on heart rate variability, rating of perceived exertion, total load, and repetition performance in young trained men were unknown.
Does low-intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction acutely affect heart rate variability, perceived exertion, total load, and repetition performance compared to high- and low-intensity resistance training without restriction in young trained men?
Does low-intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction acutely affect heart rate variability, perceived exertion, total load, and repetition performance compared to high- and low-intensity resistance training without restriction in young trained men?
Absolute Event Rate: 6.5% vs 7.8%
p-value: p=0.036
Low-intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction produces similar acute autonomic responses to traditional resistance training but elicits higher perceived exertion resembling that of high-intensity training.
Low perceived exertion favors low-intensity training without restriction for acute tolerability; leaves open adherence or outcome effects in clinical populations.
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the acute effects of high-intensity resistance training (HIRT), low-intensity resistance training (LIRT), and low-intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction (LIRT-BFR) on heart rate variability (HRV), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), total load (kg), and number of repetitions in young trained men. Methods: Thirteen volunteers (21.5 ± 1.6 years; 178.2 ± 8.0 cm; 75.7 ± 8.0 kg) performed three training sessions with six upper- and lower-limb exercises in repetition-to-failure mode. HIRT was performed at 70% 1RM, four sets and 90 s of rest; LIRT at 30% 1RM, four sets and 30 s of rest; and LIRT-BFR at 30% 1RM, four sets, 30 s of rest, and cuff pressure at 80 mmHg. The rest interval between training sessions was 72 h. Results: Total load was higher during LIRT compared with LIRT-BFR (p < 0.05), with no significant difference compared with HIRT (p > 0.05). The number of repetitions was greater in LIRT than in HIRT (p < 0.05), with no significant difference compared with LIRT-BFR (p > 0.05). RPE was lower in LIRT compared with HIRT and LIRT-BFR (p < 0.05). Time-domain parameters SDNN significantly decreased across all protocols (p < 0.001), whereas RMSSD showed no differences. Frequency-domain components (LFnu, HFnu, and LF/HF) showed no significant differences. Conclusions: LIRT elicited lower perceived exertion compared with HIRT and LIRT-BFR and higher repetition performance, whereas LIRT-BFR, despite showing similar autonomic responses, produced greater perceptual stress, resembling that of HIRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Steiger et al. (2026) studied Healthy recreationally trained men (n=13). Low-intensity resistance training (LIRT) vs. High-intensity resistance training (HIRT) and LIRT with blood flow restriction (LIRT-BFR) was evaluated on Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) (p=0.036). Low-intensity resistance training elicited a significantly lower rating of perceived exertion (mean 6.5) compared with high-intensity resistance training (7.8) and low-intensity training with blood flow restriction (7.1).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: