Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare climbing-specific performance tests with and without blood flow restriction.
Does acute blood flow restriction improve climbing-specific performance tests in climbers?
Does acute blood flow restriction improve climbing-specific performance tests in climbers?
Acute blood flow restriction does not enhance climbing-specific isometric strength, dynamic strength, or finger endurance.
BFR effects on climbing-specific strength remain unproven in small cohorts; leaves open standardized testing protocols for athletes.
The aim of the study was to compare climbing specific performance tests with and without blood flow restriction (BFR). Thirty one climbers (age 26.9 ± 5.5 years, height 177.2 ± 7.5 cm, weight 70.5 ± 8.3 kg, fat percentage 11.9 ± 4.1 %, climbing skill 18.9 ± 4.0 IRCRA scale) performed climbing specific grip tests measuring isometric strength (peak force, rate of force development and maximal voluntary contraction (and dynamic strength (power and peak velocity in pull-up) on a 23-mm campus rung. Further, an intermittent finger endurance (7 seconds work, 3 seconds rest at 60% of maximal voluntary contraction) test to failure was conducted. All tests were performed on two separate occasions (separated by 2–5 days) with and without blood flow restriction (200 mmHg) in a randomized order. The results demonstrated no differences in the isometric strength tests ( p = 0.496–0.850, ES = 0.060–0.170), dynamic strength test ( p = 0.226–0.442, ES = 0.200–0.330) or the intermittent finger endurance test ( p = 0.563, ES = 0.160). In conclusion, no differences were observed in the maximal isometric pull-up test, dynamic pull-up test or finger endurance tests including measurements as peak force, MVC, RFD, power output, peak velocity or time to fatigue at 60% of MVC with and without BFR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sæterbakken et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: