Why the study?
Does low intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction alter oxygen consumption compared to traditional high intensity training in healthy males?
Does low intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction alter oxygen consumption compared to traditional high intensity training in healthy males?
High intensity resistance training elicits higher oxygen uptake during and after exercise compared to low intensity training with blood flow restriction, though differences attenuate when accounting for training volume.
Acute VO2 lower with low-intensity BFR than high-intensity training; leaves open volume-equated aerobic stimulus in resistance protocols.
Introduction: The literature has shown that a gap is identified regarding the acute effects of blood flow restriction training on aerobic variables. Objective: to analyze oxygen consumption (VO2) during and after two resistance training sessions: traditional high intensity and low intensity with blood flow restriction. Methods: After one-repetition maximum tests, eight male participants (25.7±3 years) completed the two experimental protocols, separated by 72 hours, in a randomized order: a) high intensity training at 80% of 1RM (HIRE) and b) low intensity training at 20% of 1RM combined with blood flow restriction (LIRE + BFR). Three sets of four exercises (bench press, squat, barbell bent-over row and deadlift) were performed. Oxygen consumption and excess post-exercise oxygen consumption were measured. Results: the data showed statistically significant differences between the traditional high intensity training and low intensity training with blood flow restriction, with higher values for traditional training sessions, except for the last five minutes of the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption. Oxygen consumption measured during training was higher (p = 0.001) for the HIRE (20.32 ± 1.46 mL·kg-1·min-1) compared to the LIRE + BFR (15.65 ± 1.14 mL·kg-1·min-1). Conclusion: Oxygen uptakes rates during and after the exercise sessions were higher for the high intensity training methodology. However, when taking into account the volume of training provided by both methods, these differences were attenuated. Level of Evidence III - Non-consecutive studies, or studies without consistently applied reference stand.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Júnior et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: