Key result
Blood flow restriction using a 3-cm elastic cuff (160 mmHg) or a 5-cm nylon cuff produced similar increases in acute muscle thickness and electromyography amplitude.
Why the study?
Does individualized blood flow restriction pressure using a nylon cuff improve acute physiological and perceptual responses compared to an arbitrary pressure elastic cuff during resistance exercise?
Does individualized blood flow restriction pressure using a nylon cuff improve acute physiological and perceptual responses compared to an arbitrary pressure elastic cuff during resistance exercise?
Individualized blood flow restriction pressure with a nylon cuff produces similar acute physiological responses to arbitrary pressure with an elastic cuff, but allows for more repetitions with less discomfort.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparable acute responses with either cuff; leaves open whether individualized nylon cuffs improve tolerance or long-term outcomes.
The purpose of this study was to determine acute physiological and perceptual responses to two commonly implemented blood flow restriction protocols. Using a within-subject design, 15 participants (age ∼25) performed four sets of unilateral elbow flexion with each arm. One arm exercised using a 3-cm elastic cuff inflated to 160 mmHg, whereas the other arm exercised using a 5-cm nylon cuff inflated to 40% of the individual's arterial occlusion pressure. While both protocols elicited increases in acute muscle thickness [pre: 4.5 (0.2) cm, post: 5.0 (0.2) cm; p < 0.001] and electromyography amplitude [first 3 reps: 55 ( 5 ) %MVC; last 3 reps: 87 ( 10 ) %MVC], there were no differences between conditions. Both protocols produced decreases in post-exercise strength (pre: 70 Nm, post: 51 Nm; p < 0.001) with no difference between conditions. The nylon protocol resulted in more repetitions during sets 2 [13 ( 2 ) vs. 9 ( 4 ); p = 0.001] and 3 [10 ( 2 ) vs. 7 ( 4 ); p = 0.05], while producing lower levels of discomfort following each set (average 3 vs. 4; p < 0.05). In conclusion, both protocols produced similar acute responses thought to be important for promoting muscle growth. However, the use of arbitrary pressures may place some individuals under complete arterial occlusion which may increase the potential risk of an adverse event.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dankel et al. (2017) studied this question. Blood flow restriction using a 3-cm elastic cuff vs. 5-cm nylon cuff inflated to 40% of arterial occlusion pressure was evaluated on Acute muscle thickness and electromyography amplitude. Blood flow restriction using a 3-cm elastic cuff (160 mmHg) or a 5-cm nylon cuff produced similar increases in acute muscle thickness and electromyography amplitude.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: