Why the study?
The study evaluated the reliability and physiological, perceptual, and kinematic effects of a practical neoprene blood flow restriction cuff compared to traditional cuffs and unrestricted swimming exercise.
Does a practical blood flow restriction device alter physiological, perceptual, and kinematic responses during sub-maximal swimming exercise?
Does a practical blood flow restriction device alter physiological, perceptual, and kinematic responses during sub-maximal swimming exercise?
A practical blood flow restriction device increases physiological stress during sub-maximal swimming, suggesting potential utility as an additional training tool for swimmers.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Practical cuffs may enable accessible TSI monitoring in swimmers; leaves open validation against performance endpoints in prospective trials.
Purpose: The present study aimed to analyze: 1) the reliability of the tissue saturation index (TSI) and ratings of perceived discomfort (RPD) responses wearing a neoprene practical cuff (PrC), comparing with the responses from traditional (TrC) pneumatic cuffs (study I); 2) the effects of PrC on metabolic (blood lactate concentration, BLC), perceptual (rate of perceived effort, RPE) and kinematic responses at sub-maximal swimming velocities (study II). Methods: Study I; 1) PrC test-retest at rest and during swimming ergometer exercise; 2) BFR at rest with TrC inflated to different percentages of the minimum arterial occlusion pressure (MAOP; 60, 80, 100, 120 and 140%). Test-retest reliability of TSI and RPD was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and comparisons among conditions were analyzed by one-way repeated-measures ANOVA. Study II; 1) 50, 200 and 400 m swimming performances; 2) sub-maximal incremental swimming protocol with and without PrC. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare all variables during sub-maximal velocities. Results: TSI (ICC = 0.81; 95%CI 0.62–0.91) and RPD (ICC = 0.97; 95%CI 0.94–0.99) were reliable under restricted exercise using PrC. TSI during restricted exercise was lower (p <.001) compared to unrestricted exercise (6.8 ± 6.1% vs. 21.6 ± 8.2% of physiological normalization). PrC showed higher BLC only at or above 91% of critical velocity (p < .03), while stroke rate and RPE were higher (p < .005), and stroke length was lower (p < .03) during all swimming velocities. Conclusion: This easy-to-handle and affordable practical BFR device increased physiological stress at sub-maximal efforts which could be an additional training tool for swimmers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lisbôa et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: