Key result
Moderate-intensity walking with blood flow restriction produced lower acute cardio-respiratory responses but higher perceived exertion and discomfort compared with unrestricted jogging (p<0.01).
Why the study?
It was unknown whether walking with blood flow restriction increases acute cardio-respiratory demands sufficiently to serve as an alternative to jogging.
Does low- to moderate-intensity walking with blood flow restriction produce equivalent acute cardio-respiratory responses compared to unrestricted jogging in physically active adults?
RCT (n=16)
Order randomised
Does low- to moderate-intensity walking with blood flow restriction produce equivalent acute cardio-respiratory responses compared to unrestricted jogging in physically active adults?
p-value: p=<0.01
Low- to moderate-intensity walking with blood flow restriction does not provide an equivalent acute cardio-respiratory stimulus to unrestricted jogging, despite causing higher perceived exertion and discomfort.
BFR walking may lower cardio-respiratory strain versus jogging but raises discomfort; leaves open its role in exercise-intolerant patients.
This study investigated whether walking with blood flow restriction (BFR) increases acute cardio‐respiratory demands to the point that it can be considered an alternative for jogging. Sixteen physically active adults completed five experimental sessions (order randomised), comprising 10 min of treadmill exercise. Two sessions included unrestricted walking, two sessions required walking with BFR cuffs positioned on the lower limbs inflated to 60% of individualised arterial occlusion pressure, and one session was conducted at a jogging pace. Comfortable walking and jogging speeds were calculated during the familiarisation session. Walking speeds were individualised to either 100% (speed: 6.0 ± 0.3km·h‐1[low‐intensity]) or 120% (speed: 7.2 ± 0.3km·h‐1[moderate‐intensity]) of comfortable walking speed. The jogging session was unrestricted (speed: 9.1 ± 0.7km·h‐1). Initial analysis compared walking conditions across heart rate, left cardiac work index, systolic blood pressure, relative oxygen consumption, minute ventilation, rating of perceived exertion and limb discomfort. Secondary analysis compared the walking session with the highest cardio‐respiratory demands to jogging. Initial analysis identified that moderate‐intensity with BFR induced the highest cardio‐respiratory and perceptual responses compared with any other walking sessions (p < 0.01). Secondary analysis revealed that all cardio‐respiratory measures were higher during jogging when compared with moderate‐intensity with BFR (p < 0.01), except systolic blood pressure (p = 0.10). All perceptual measures were higher during moderate‐intensity with BFR (p < 0.01) compared with jogging. Low‐ to moderate‐intensity BFR‐walking produces lower acute cardio‐respiratory responses at higher ratings of perceived exertion and discomfort compared with jogging. Overall, BFR‐walking does not seem to provide an equivalent exercise modality for unrestricted jogging in physically active adults.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Walden et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Healthy physically active adults (n=16). Walking with blood flow restriction (BFR) vs. Unrestricted jogging was evaluated on Cardio-respiratory and perceptual responses (p=<0.01). Moderate-intensity walking with blood flow restriction produced lower acute cardio-respiratory responses but higher perceived exertion and discomfort compared with unrestricted jogging (p<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: