Why the study?
Blood flow restriction training provides an alternative to traditional strength training, but differences in quadriceps muscle activation, pain, and perceived exertion across different BFRT devices and high-load resistance exercise needed evaluation.
Does low-load resistance blood flow restriction training improve quadriceps muscle activation compared to high-load resistance exercise in healthy subjects?
Does low-load resistance blood flow restriction training improve quadriceps muscle activation compared to high-load resistance exercise in healthy subjects?
High-load resistance exercise elicits greater quadriceps muscle activation than low-load blood flow restriction training, with no difference in activation between regulated and standardized BFRT devices.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
High-load resistance exercise should be prioritized for quadriceps activation over low-load BFRT; confirms its superiority in healthy subjects.
OBJECTIVES: Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) provides an alternative approach to traditional strength training. The purpose of this study was to determine differences in quadriceps muscle activation, subject reported pain, and perceived exertion between three exercise conditions: low-load resistance BFRT with (1) regulated and (2) standardized devices, and (3) high-load resistance exercise without BFRT. DESIGN: Randomized cross over study. SETTING: XX University Biomechanics laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-four healthy subjects (18 male/16 female) each completed three randomized sessions of knee extensions using Delfi's Personalized Tourniquet System (R) at 30% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), the B-Strong™ device (S) at 30% 1RM, and high-load resistance exercise (HL) at 80% 1RM. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quadriceps EMG activity, numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and perceived exertion (OMNI-RES) were recorded. RESULTS: Average and peak EMG were greater in HL sessions than both S and R (p < .001). NPRS was greater in the R sessions compared to both S (p < .001) and HL (p < .001). OMNI-RES was greater in the R sessions compared to S (p < .02) and HL (p < .001). No differences (p > .05) in average or peak EMG activation were found between S and R sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Quadriceps EMG amplitude was greater during high-load resistance exercise versus low-load BFR exercise and there were no differences in EMG findings between BFRT devices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bordessa et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: