Exercise adherence‐related perceptual responses to low‐load blood flow restriction resistance exercise in young adults: A pilot study

FIGURE 1. Experimental procedures of resistance exercise (RE) sessions with blood flow restriction (BFR) and non‐BFR (NBFR). Panel a shows the consort flow diagram for three visits of this study. In the familiarization day (i.e., visit 1), subjects received detailed explanations on experimental procedures (e.g., experimental protocols and perceptual parameters). Moreover, the subject's physical characteristics, body composition, anthropometrical parameters of the thigh, and one‐repetition maximum (1‐RM) of the bilateral knee extension were measured. Furthermore, the subjects were familiarized with the BFR maneuver. In the two experimental days (i.e., visits 2 and 3), the subjects completed both RE sessions with BFR and NBFR in a crossover design with a randomized and counterbalanced order. Panel b shows experimental procedures during the two experimental days. In each experimental day, the Borg's 15‐point Scale‐measured rating of perceived exertion (RPE), the Borg's Category‐Ratio 10‐point Scale (CR‐10)‐measured leg discomfort, the Feeling Scale (FS)‐measured affect, the Task Motivation Scale (TMS)‐measured task motivation, and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)‐measured perceived pain were…

FIGURE 2. Cardiovascular, blood metabolite, and quadriceps femoris muscle activity responses to BFR‐ and NBFR‐REs. Panel a shows the changes in HR and BP throughout BFR‐ and NBFR‐RE sessions. Panel b shows the changes in BL and BG levels throughout BFR‐ and NBFR‐RE sessions. Panel c shows EMG activities of the three quadriceps femoris muscles during BFR‐ and NBFR‐REs. Values are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean. MVC; maximum voluntary contraction. *p < 0.05 versus NBFR‐RE, a p < 0.05 versus before RE (i.e., Pre), b p < 0.05 versus immediately after RE (i.e., Post 0)

FIGURE 3. Changes in RPE and leg discomfort throughout BFR‐ and NBFR‐RE sessions. Values are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean. *p < 0.05 versus NBFR, a p < 0.05 versus Pre, b p < 0.05 versus Set 1, c p < 0.05 versus Set 2, d p < 0.05 versus Set 3, e p < 0.05 versus Set 4 (i.e., Post 0).

FIGURE 4. Changes in affect, task motivation, and perceived pain throughout BFR‐ and NBFR‐RE sessions. Values are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean. * p < 0.05 versus NBFR, a p < 0.05 versus Pre, b p < 0.05 versus Set 1, c p < 0.05 versus Set 2, d p < 0.05 versus Set 3, e p < 0.05 versus Set 4 (i.e., Post 0).

FIGURE 5. Comparison of enjoyment immediately after BFR‐ and NBFR‐REs. Values are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean. *Significant difference (p < 0.001) between BFR‐ and NBFR‐REs