Differential training benefits and motor unit remodeling in wrist force precision tasks following high and low load blood flow restriction exercises under volume-matched conditions.

BACKGROUND: Blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance training has demonstrated efficacy in promoting strength gains beneficial for rehabilitation. Yet, the distinct functional advantages of BFR strength training using high-load and low-load protocols remain unclear. This study explored the behavioral and neurophysiological mechanisms that explain the differing effects after volume-matched high-load and low-load BFR training. METHODS: Twenty-eight healthy participants were randomly assigned to the high-load blood flow restriction (BFR-HL, n = 14) and low-load blood flow restriction (BFR-LL, n = 14) groups. They underwent 3 weeks of BFR training for isometric wrist extension at intensities of 25% or 75% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) with matched training volume. Pre- and post-tests included MVC and trapezoidal force-tracking tests (0-75%-0% MVC) with multi-channel surface electromyography (EMG) from the extensor digitorum. RESULTS: The BFR-HL group exhibited a greater strength gain than that of the BFR-LL group after training (BFR_HL: 26.96 ± 16.33% vs. BFR_LL: 11.16 ± 15.34%)(p = 0.020). However, only the BFR-LL group showed improvement in force steadiness for tracking performance in the post-test (p = 0.004), indicated by a smaller normalized change in force fluctuations compared to the BFR-HL group (p = 0.048). After training, the BFR-HL group activated motor units (MUs) with higher recruitment thresholds (p < 0.001) and longer inter-spike intervals (p = 0.002), contrary to the BFR-LL group, who activated MUs with lower recruitment thresholds (p < 0.001) and shorter inter-spike intervals (p < 0.001) during force-tracking. The discharge variability (p < 0.003) and common drive index (p < 0.002) of MUs were consistently reduced with training for the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: BFR-HL training led to greater strength gains, while BFR-LL training better improved force precision control due to activation of MUs with lower recruitment thresholds and higher discharge rates.

Effects of blood flow restriction training on physical fitness among athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) is an effective, scientific and safe training method, but its effect on the overall quality of athletes remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to clarify the effects of BFRT on the physical fitness among athletes. Based on the PRISMA guidelines, searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and SCOUPS, the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool was used to assess methodological quality, and RevMan 5.4 and STATA 15.0 software were used to analyze the data. A meta-analysis of 28 studies with a total sample size of 542 athletes aged 14-26 years and assessed as low risk for quality was performed. Our results revealed that the BFRT intervention had small to large improvements in the athletes' strength (ES = 0.74-1.03), power (ES = 0.46), speed (ES = 0.54), endurance (ES = 1.39-1.40), body composition (ES = 0.28-1.23), while there was no significant effect on body mass (p > 0.05). Subgroup analyses revealed that moderator variables (training duration, frequency, load, cuff pressure, and pressurization time) also had varying degrees of effect on athletes' physical fitness parameters. In conclusion, BFRT had a positive effect on the physical fitness parameters of the athletes, with significantly improved strength, power, speed, endurance and body composition, but not body mass parameters. When the training frequency ≥ 3 times/week, cuff pressure ≥ 160 mmHg, and pressurization time ≥ 10 min, the BFRT group was more favorable for the improvement of physical fitness parameters.

Low-load Resistance Exercise with Perceptually Primed Practical Blood Flow Restriction Induces Similar Motor Performance Fatigue, Physiological Changes, and Perceptual Responses Compared to Traditional Blood Flow Restriction in Males and Females.

In the recent past, practical blood flow restriction (pBFR) using non-pneumatic, usually elastic cuffs has been established as a cost-effective alternative to traditional blood flow restriction (BFR) using pneumatic cuffs, especially for training in large groups. This study investigated whether low-load resistance exercise with perceptually primed pBFR using an elastic knee wrap is suitable to induce similar motor performance fatigue as well as physiological and perceptual responses compared to traditional BFR using a pneumatic nylon cuff in males and females. In a randomized, counterbalanced cross-over study, 30 healthy subjects performed 4 sets (30-15-15-15 repetitions) of unilateral knee extensions at 20% of their one-repetition-maximum. In the pBFR condition, each individual was perceptually primed to a BFR pressure corresponding to 60% of their arterial occlusion pressure. Before and after exercise, maximal voluntary torque, maximal muscle activity, and cuff pressure-induced discomfort were assessed. Moreover, physiological (i.e., muscle activity, muscle oxygenation) and perceptual responses (i.e., effort and exercise-induced leg muscle pain) were recorded during exercise. Moderate correlations with no differences between pBFR and BFR were found regarding the decline in maximal voluntary torque and maximal muscle activity. Furthermore, no to very strong correlations between conditions, with no differences, were observed for muscle activity, muscle oxygenation, and perceptual responses during exercise sets. However, cuff pressure-induced discomfort was lower in the pBFR compared to the BFR condition. These results indicate that low-load resistance exercise combined with perceptually primed pBFR is a convenient and less discomfort inducing alternative to traditional BFR. This is especially relevant for BFR training with people who have a low cuff-induced discomfort tolerance.

Aerobic Training With Blood Flow Restriction on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: de Lemos Muller, CH, Farinha, JB, Leal-Menezes, R, and Ramis, TR. Aerobic training with blood flow restriction on muscle hypertrophy and strength: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1341-1349, 2024-Integrating strength and endurance training in a single exercise session, even on separate days, can be physically demanding and time-consuming. Therefore, there is a growing interest in identifying efficient training methods that can concurrently enhance cardiovascular and neuromuscular performance through a singular training modality. This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effects of aerobic training with blood flow restriction (AT + BFR) on muscle hypertrophy and strength gains in healthy individuals. Our study was registered at PROSPERO and used multiple databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science), seeking clinical trials that examined AT + BFR influence on muscle hypertrophy and strength gains in individuals aged 18-60 years and comparing with aerobic training without BFR. The risk of bias and method quality were assessed using the ROB2.0 tool and PEDro scale, respectively, and the quality of evidence was evaluated with the GRADE method. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, and standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated for each outcome. Of 4,462 records, 29 full texts were assessed for eligibility, with 7 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that AT + BFR was more beneficial for inducing muscle hypertrophy than aerobic training without BFR (SMD [95% CI] = 0.86 [0.37-1.35]; I2 = 42%). Furthermore, AT + BFR was associated with greater improvements in muscle strength (SMD [95% CI] = 0.41 [0.10-0.72]; I2 = 0%). Despite the generally high risk of bias for both outcomes, these encouraging findings underscore the clinical significance of AT + BFR as a compelling tool for enhancing neuromuscular parameters.

Influence of Blood Flow Restriction on Neuromuscular Function and Fatigue During Forearm Flexion in Men.

ABSTRACT: Montgomery, TR Jr, Olmos, A, Sears, KN, Succi, PJ, Hammer, SM, Bergstrom, HC, Hill, EC, Trevino, MA, and Dinyer-McNeely, TK. Influence of blood flow restriction on neuromuscular function and fatigue during forearm flexion in men. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): e349-e358, 2024-To determine the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) on the mean firing rate (MFR) and motor unit action potential amplitude (MUAPAMP) vs. recruitment threshold (RT) relationships during fatiguing isometric elbow flexions. Ten men (24.5 ± 4.0 years) performed isometric trapezoidal contractions at 50% maximum voluntary contraction to task failure with or without BFR, on 2 separate days. For BFR, a cuff was inflated to 60% of the pressure required for full brachial artery occlusion at rest. During both visits, surface electromyography was recorded from the biceps brachii of the dominant limb and the signal was decomposed. A paired-samples t test was used to determine the number of repetitions completed between BFR and CON. ANOVAs (repetition [first, last] × condition [BFR, CON]) were used to determine differences in MFR vs. RT and MUAPAMP vs. RT relationships. Subjects completed more repetitions during CON (12 ± 4) than BFR (9 ± 2; p = 0.012). There was no significant interaction (p > 0.05) between the slopes and y-intercepts during the repetition × condition interaction for MUAPAMP vs. MFR. However, there was a main effect of repetition for the slopes of the MUAPAMP vs. RT (p = 0.041) but not the y-intercept (p = 0.964). Post hoc analysis (collapsed across condition) indicated that the slopes of the MUAPAMP vs. RT during the first repetition was less than the last repetition (first: 0.022 ± 0.003 mv/%MVC; last: 0.028 ± 0.004 mv/%MVC; p = 0.041). Blood flow restriction resulted in the same amount of higher threshold MU recruitment in approximately 75% of the repetitions. Furthermore, there was no change in MFR for either condition, even when taken to task failure. Thus, BFR training may create similar MU responses with less total work completed than training without BFR.

Effects of low-load blood flow restriction training in healthy adult tendons: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effects of low-load blood flow restriction training (LL-BFR) on healthy adult tendons. DESIGN: A systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: Six electronic databases were searched by two researchers. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Clinical trials comparing the effects of LL-BFR to high-load resistance training (HL-RT) or low-load resistance training (LL-RT) in healthy adult tendons. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers selected the eligible clinical trials, and one reviewer exported the data. Two reviewers evaluated the study quality and risk of bias using the PEDro scale and the ROB2 scale. We performed meta-analysis where appropriate using a random-effects model. We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: Six studies were eligible. We analyzed tendon cross-sectional area (CSA) and tendon stiffness as the outcomes. Across all comparisons, there was low-to moderate-quality evidence of a difference between LL-BFR and LL-RT immediately after exercise. There was high-quality evidence of no difference between LL-BFR and HL-RT in the long term. CONCLUSION: The effects of LL-BFR on the tendons depends on the time and dose of the intervention. LL-BFR could be useful to increase the CSA of the tendons in a similar or superior way to HL-RT after 8 weeks of intervention.

Intermittent blood flow restriction with low-load resistance training for older adults with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a chronic musculoskeletal disorder characterized by pain and functional impairment. Blood flow restriction (BFR) with low-load resistance training (LLRT) demonstrates a similar improvement in clinical outcomes to high-load resistance training (HLRT) in treating KOA. It has not been established whether intermittent blood flow restriction (iBFR) with LLRT can lead to clinical outcomes that are comparable to those produced by continuous blood flow restriction (cBFR) with LLRT and HLRT. The aim of the proposed study is to evaluate the efficacy of iBFR with LLRT on pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, perceptions of discomfort and effort, and adherence in KOA patients. METHODS: This is a three-arm, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial utilizing blinded assessors. Two hundred thirteen participants will be randomly allocated to one of the following three groups: iBFR group-receiving 4 months of LLRT with iBFR, twice weekly (n = 71); cBFR group-receiving 4 months of LLRT with cBFR, twice weekly (n = 71); or HLRT group-receiving 4 months of HLRT without BFR, twice weekly (n = 71). The primary outcome is pain. The secondary outcomes include the WOMAC, muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, perceptions of discomfort and effort, and adherence. Pain and WOMAC will be measured at the baseline and 4 and 12 months after randomizations. Muscle strength, muscle mass, and physical function will be measured at the baseline and 4 months after randomizations. The perceptions of discomfort and effort will be measured during the first and final sessions. DISCUSSION: BFR with LLRT has a similar improvement in clinical outcomes as HLRT. However, cBFR may cause elevated ratings of perceived exertion and local discomfort, compromising patient tolerability and treatment adherence. If iBFR with LLRT could produce improvement in clinical outcomes analogous to those of HLRT and iBFR with LLRT, it could be considered an alternative approach for treating patients with KOA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300072820. Registered on June 26, 2023.

Blood Flow Restriction Therapy After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) rehabilitation necessitates restoration of quadriceps strength to minimize reinjury and optimize return to sport (RTS). Patients recovering from ACLR are limited by pain and activity restrictions, resulting in quadriceps muscle atrophy. Blood flow restriction (BFR) therapy involves performing exercises while a specialized blood pressure cuff is applied to the proximal aspect of the operative extremity and inflated to 40% to 90% of the arterial occlusion pressure, as determined using Doppler ultrasonography. BFR is theorized to induce an anaerobic environment and metabolic stress during exercise, promoting muscle hypertrophy and strength gains. Although the physiological mechanism has not been fully elucidated, it is theorized that BFR combined with low-load resistance training could yield muscle adaptations comparable to those of high-load resistance training. For ACLR patients with pain and restrictions precluding high-intensity strength training, incorporation of BFR into postoperative rehabilitation protocols could help mitigate quadriceps weakness and promote RTS. Randomized controlled trials report a prolonged, dose-dependent relation between BFR use and quadriceps and hamstring strength gains, improved bone and muscle mass, and earlier RTS, whereas other studies report no significant difference in quadriceps size, strength, or patient satisfaction compared with controls. Furthermore, although generally considered safe, there are rare reports of associated adverse events such as rhabdomyolysis, and BFR should be avoided in patients with a history of thromboembolic disease or peripheral vasculopathy. The literature examining BFR after ACLR is heterogeneous; lacks standardization; and contains broad variation in reported cuff pressures, as well as timing and duration of BFR use, among protocols. Although the use of BFR after ACLR shows promise, further study is necessary to elucidate the efficacy, safety, and optimal protocols.

Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training on Autonomic and Endothelial Function in Persons with Parkinson's Disease.

Background: Autonomic dysfunction precedes endothelial dysfunction in Parkinson's disease (PD) and causes blood pressure and circulation abnormalities that are highly disruptive to one's quality of life. While exercise interventions have proven helpful for motor symptoms of PD, improving associated non-motor symptoms is limited. Low-intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction (LIRT-BFR) improves autonomic dysfunction in non-PD patients and high-intensity resistance training (HIRT) is recommended for motor symptom improvements for people with PD (PwPD). Objective: To determine the effects of LIRT-BFR and HIRT on homocysteine and autonomic and endothelial function in PwPD and to determine the hemodynamic loads during LIRT-BFR and HIRT in PwPD using a novel exercise protocol. Methods: Thirty-eight PwPD were assigned LIRT-BFR, HIRT or to a control (CNTRL) group. The LIRT-BFR and HIRT groups exercised three days per week for four weeks. The LIRT-BFR protocol used 60% limb occlusion pressure (LOP) and performed three sets of 20 repetitions at 20% of the one-repetition maximum (1RM). The HIRT group performed three sets of eight repetitions at 80% 1RM. The CNTRL group was asked to continue their normal daily routines. Results: LIRT-BFR significantly improved orthostatic hypotension (p = 0.026), homocysteine levels (p < 0.001), peripheral circulation (p = 0.003), supine blood pressure (p = 0.028) and heart rate variability (p = 0.041); LIRT-BFR improved homocysteine levels (p < 0.018), peripheral circulation (p = 0.005), supine blood pressure (p = 0.007) and heart rate variability (p = 0.047) more than HIRT; and hemodynamic loads for LIRT-BFR and HIRT were similar. Conclusions: LIRT-BFR may be more effective than HIRT for autonomic and endothelial function improvements in PwPD and hemodynamic loads may be lessened in LIRT-BFR protocols using single-joint exercises with intermittent blood flow restriction. Further research is needed to determine if non-motor symptoms improve over time and if results are sustainable.

It's time to regulate - The importance of accurate surgical-grade tourniquet autoregulation in blood flow restriction exercise applications.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the efficacy of five common blood flow restriction (BFR) systems to accurately maintain and autoregulate BFR pressure in the tourniquet cuff near target pressure throughout exercise. DESIGN: Randomised crossover design. SETTING: Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: 15 healthy individuals. OUTCOME MEASURES: 1) Percentage of total BFR time that surgical-grade tourniquet autoregulation, defined as automatic and rapid self-regulation of cuff pressure to within ±15 mmHg of initial target pressure within 1 s in the presence of transient pressure changes associated with exercise, was provided; 2) pressure change in the BFR cuff throughout exercise, by comparing the initial target pressure to the measured pressure at completion of BFR exercise. RESULTS: One BFR system could provide surgical-grade tourniquet autoregulation for the whole duration (100 ± 0%) of the BFR exercise in all subjects. In two of the five BFR systems evaluated, measured cuff pressure at the end of exercise was not different (p < 0.05) to the initial target pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical-grade tourniquet autoregulation is important to consistently and reliably apply a targeted BFR pressure stimulus. This may allow BFR methodology and protocols to be accurately implemented and controlled so that the results can be more meaningfully compared, leading to the potential optimization of applications.

Enhanced Pain Relief and Muscle Growth in Individuals with Low Back Instability: The Impact of Blood Flow Restriction Exercise during Sit to Stand Movements.

BACKGROUND Blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE) improves muscle strength at a relatively low intensity by temporarily restricting blood flow. This study compared pain and quadriceps muscle mass (QMM) in 40 patients with lower back pain (LBP) undertaking sit-to-stand (STS) exercise with and without blood flow restriction. MATERIAL AND METHODS Forty adults were divided into 2 groups, and the experimental group (n=20) performed an STS exercise with BFRE, and the control group (n=20) performed an STS exercise without BFRE. Blood pressure, including systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), was measured using a portable blood pressure monitor. Saturation of percutaneous oxygen (SpO2) was measured using oxygen saturation. Pain was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). QMM was assessed using ultrasonography. RESULTS Data were analyzed using paired and independent t tests. SBP (P=.000), DBP (P=.004), and SpO2 (P=.001) were significantly different in the experimental group, both before and during the intervention. The VAS scores showed a statistically significant difference in the post-test (P=.003) and rate of change (P=.009) between the groups. The ODI scores showed statistically significant differences in the post-test (P=.000) and rate of change (P=.001) comparison between the groups. The rate of change in QMM, including the rectus femoris (P=.000), vastus intermedius (P=.004), vastus medialis (P=.001), and vastus lateralis (P=.014), increased significantly in the experimental group compared to that in the control group. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that the additive effect of BFRE on pain relief and QMM increase, thus contributing to existing knowledge about therapeutic exercise for the effective management of LBP.

Safety and efficacy of blood flow restriction exercise in individuals with neurological disorders: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review evaluated the safety and efficacy of blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE) on skeletal muscle size, strength, and functional performance in individuals with neurological disorders (ND). METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase. Two researchers independently assessed eligibility and performed data extraction and quality assessments. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Study populations with ND, BFRE as intervention modality, outcome measures related to safety or efficacy. RESULTS: Out of 443 studies identified, 16 were deemed eligible for review. Three studies examined the efficacy and safety of BFRE, one study focused on efficacy results, and 12 studies investigated safety. Disease populations included spinal cord injury (SCI), inclusion body myositis (sIBM), multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's disease (PD), and stroke. A moderate-to-high risk of bias was presented in the quality assessment. Five studies reported safety concerns, including acutely elevated pain and rating of perceived exertion levels, severe fatigue, muscle soreness, and cases of autonomic dysreflexia. Two RCTs reported a significant between-group difference in physical function outcomes, and two RCTs reported neuromuscular adaptations. CONCLUSION: BFRE seems to be a potentially safe and effective training modality in individuals with ND. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to limited quality and number of studies, small sample sizes, and a general lack of heterogeneity within and between the examined patient cohorts.

Current Implementation and Barriers to Using Blood Flow Restriction Training: Insights From a Survey of Allied Health Practitioners.

ABSTRACT: Scott, BR, Marston, KJ, Owens, J, Rolnick, N, and Patterson, SD. Current implementation and barriers to using blood flow restriction training: Insights from a survey of allied health practitioners. J Strength Cond Res 38(3): 481-490, 2024-This study investigated the use of blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise by practitioners working specifically with clinical or older populations, and the barriers preventing some practitioners from prescribing BFR. An online survey was disseminated globally to allied health practitioners, with data from 397 responders included in analyses. Responders who had prescribed BFR exercise ( n = 308) completed questions about how they implement this technique. Those who had not prescribed BFR exercise ( n = 89) provided information on barriers to using this technique, and a subset of these responders ( n = 22) completed a follow-up survey to investigate how these barriers could be alleviated. Most practitioners prescribe BFR exercise for musculoskeletal rehabilitation clients (91.6%), with the BFR cuff pressure typically relative to arterial occlusion pressure (81.1%) and implemented with resistance (96.8%) or aerobic exercise (42.9%). Most practitioners screen for contraindications (68.2%), although minor side effects, including muscle soreness (65.8%), are common. The main barriers preventing some practitioners from using BFR are lack of equipment (60.2%), insufficient education (55.7%), and safety concerns (31.8%). Suggestions to alleviate these barriers included developing educational resources about the safe application and benefits of BFR exercise ( n = 20) that are affordable ( n = 3) and convenient ( n = 4). These results indicate that BFR prescription for clinical and older cohorts mainly conforms with current guidelines, which is important considering the potentially increased risk for adverse events in these cohorts. However, barriers still prevent broader utility of BFR training, although some may be alleviated through well-developed educational offerings to train practitioners in using BFR exercise.

Impact of Blood Flow Restriction Exercise on Central Hemodynamics and Fluid Regulating Hormones.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to characterize both the efficacy of altered restriction pressures and consequences of optimized blood flow restriction (BFR) for altering the cardiovascular and fluid regulating response in humans. METHODS: This work comprised a series of related trials. Phase 1: during semi-recumbent cycling (5 min, 60 W) with BFR at 0%, 50%, 75%, 100%, and 125% of participants' lowest arterial occlusion pressure (LOP) echocardiographic images were collected alongside continuous heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP). In phase 2, 24 h fluid balance (intake-output) and fluid-regulating hormone responses were measured after a practical BFR exercise session (treadmill walking: 5·3 min, 1 min rest, 5 km·h -1 , 5% incline, 100% LOP). Phase 3 examined the magnitude and effect of blood volume distribution following BFR treadmill walking using a modified CO-rebreathe technique. RESULTS: Cardiac ejection fraction remained stable irrespective of cuff pressure and despite a reduction in end-diastolic volume (Δ of 11 ± 9 mL, P = 0.02). HR and BP were highest at 100% LOP (ΔHR = 18 ± 19 bpm, ΔSBP = 51 ± 30 mm Hg, ΔDBP = 33 ± 15 mm Hg, ΔRate Pressure Product = 76 ± 32 bpm·mm Hg·100 -1 ). BFR treadmill walking stimulated a greater release of fluid-regulating hormones than normal walking (Δrenin = BFR: 25.3 ± 24.2 vs CON: 9.1 ± 11.8 ng·L -1 ; Δcopeptin = BFR: 50.1 ± 97.9 vs. CON: 0.43 ± 0.8 pmol·L -1 ), but no difference in fluid retention was observed ( P = 0.2). Approximately 27% of total blood volume was confined to the legs during BFR, but the relative volume trapped in the legs was not related to fluid-regulating hormone release (renin r = -0.04, P = 0.9; copeptin r = 0.27, P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: BFR exercise elicits the largest cardiovascular effect using 100% LOP, with evidence of appreciable fluid regulating hormonal response during a typical BFR exercise session. The relative volume of blood sequestered in the limb does not appear to drive this response.

Idiosyncratic bone responses to blood flow restriction exercise: new insights and future directions.

Applying blood flow restriction (BFR) during low-load exercise induces beneficial adaptations of the myotendinous and neuromuscular systems. Despite the low mechanical tension, BFR exercise facilitates a localized hypoxic environment and increase in metabolic stress, widely regarded as the primary stimulus for tissue adaptations. First evidence indicates that low-load BFR exercise is effective in promoting an osteogenic response in bone, although this has previously been postulated to adapt primarily during high-impact weight-bearing exercise. Besides studies investigating the acute response of bone biomarkers following BFR exercise, first long-term trials demonstrate beneficial adaptations in bone in both healthy and clinical populations. Despite the increasing number of studies, the physiological mechanisms are largely unknown. Moreover, heterogeneity in methodological approaches such as biomarkers of bone metabolism measured, participant and study characteristics, and time course of measurement renders it difficult to formulate accurate conclusions. Furthermore, incongruity in the methods of BFR application (e.g., cuff pressure) limits the comparability of datasets and thus hinders generalizability of study findings. Appropriate use of biomarkers, effective BFR application, and befitting study design have the potential to progress knowledge on the acute and chronic response of bone to BFR exercise and contribute toward the development of a novel strategy to protect or enhance bone health. Therefore, the purpose of the present synthesis review is to 1) evaluate current mechanistic evidence; 2) discuss and offer explanations for similar and contrasting data findings; and 3) create a methodological framework for future mechanistic and applied research.

Blood Flow Restriction Training in Patients With Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy: A Randomized, Assessor-Blinded, Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training on shoulder muscle thickness, rotator cuff (RC) strength, and shoulder symptoms in patients with RC tendinopathy. DESIGN: A randomized, assessor-blinded, controlled trial. SETTINGS: Physiotherapy clinic at a university. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight patients were randomized into an 8-week (2 times/week) shoulder rehabilitation, that is, BFR or non-BFR group. INTERVENTIONS: BFR training. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) RC, deltoid, scapula retractor, and biceps muscle thicknesses and shoulder internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) strengths. (2) Shoulder pain/function. RESULTS: The BFR group had a greater increase in biceps muscle thickness ( P = 0.002) and shoulder IR strength at 60 degrees/s ( P = 0.040) than the non-BFR group. No differences between the 2 groups were observed in other measurements. Significant improvements in supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and scapula retractor muscle thicknesses and in shoulder ER and IR strengths were observed over time in both the groups (all P < 0 .05). Also, shoulder pain decreased and shoulder function increased over time in both the groups (all P < 0 .05). CONCLUSIONS: Low-load BFR training resulted in a greater increase in biceps thickness and shoulder IR strength compared with the non-BFR group in patients with RC tendinopathy. However, there was no superiority of either exercise training regarding the RC, scapula retractor, deltoid muscle thicknesses, or improvements in shoulder ER strength and shoulder pain/function. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov named Blood Flow Restriction Training in Patients with Shoulder Pain and the registration number is NCT04333784.

Effects of blood flow restriction training on sports performance in athletes: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) is an effective training method to improve sports performance in healthy athletes. Nevertheless, a systematic review with meta-analysis regarding how BFRT affects sports performance in athletes is still lacking. Consequently, the study attempted to expand and consolidate the prior studies regarding the effect of BFRT on technical and physical performance in athletes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This study was based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes) statement guidelines for a systematic review of the academic databases Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, EBSCOhost (SportDiscus), and Google Scholar. The PEDro scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included publications, which ranged from moderate to high quality. The systematic review protocol was registered on inplasy.com (INPLASY202380049). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Out of 249 studies identified, 93 articles were evaluated as eligible, and after the screening, 18 studies were finally included in this systematic review. Meta-analysis results showed a significant enhancement on vertical jump height in the BFRT group compared to the control group (SMD=1.39, 95% CI=0.30-2.49, P=0.01). BFRT was able to significantly increase maximal oxygen uptake (SMD=1.65, 95% CI=0.56-2.74, P<0.01). While no significant improvement in sprint time was observed (SMD= -0.18, 95% CI=-1.18-0.82, P=0.115). CONCLUSIONS: The finding suggests that BFRT is beneficial to athletes as this training method can be effective in enhancing physical and technical performance in athletes. Nevertheless, further analysis needs to be conducted to fully determine the effectiveness of the moderators of the intervention on sports performance.

Low-load blood flow restriction strength training in patients with COPD: a randomised single-blind pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of lower limb low-load blood flow restriction training (LL-BFRT) with high-load strength training (HL-ST) as part of an outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programme on leg strength in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Participants were randomised to LL-BFRT or HL-ST (24 sessions). LL-BFRT was done at 30% 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) with 70% arterial occlusion pressure. HL-ST was done at 70% 1-RM. Primary outcome was isometric strength of knee extensors and flexors. Secondary outcomes were 1-RM, functional exercise capacity, physical activity, symptom burden and health-related quality of life. Perceptions of dyspnoea and leg fatigue were recorded after every exercise. We compared groups with t-tests. RESULTS: We included 30 participants (13 women, 17 men, 64 (9) years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s 47 (18)% pred.), 24 completed the study. Isometric knee extensor strength improved to a clinically relevant degree in both legs in both groups (LL-BFRT: right leg 9 (20) Nm, left leg 10 (18) Nm; HL-ST: right leg 15 (26) Nm, left leg 16 (30) Nm, data are mean (SD)), without statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group differences (right leg mean difference= -6.4, 95% CI= -13.20 to 25.92 Nm, left leg mean difference= -5.6, 95% CI= -15.44 to 26.55 Nm). 1 min sit-to-stand test performance improved to a clinically relevant degree only in the LL-BFRT group (4 (4) vs 1 (5) repetitions). Interestingly, physical activity improved to a clinically relevant degree only in the LL-BFRT group (1506 (2441) vs -182 (1971) steps/day). LL-BFRT lowered perceived in-exercise dyspnoea and increased leg fatigue compared with HL-ST in the initial 12 trainings. CONCLUSION: In patients with stable COPD undergoing outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation, LL-BFRT was not superior to HL-ST in improving leg strength. LL-BFRT led to similar strength gains as HL-ST while reducing perceptions of dyspnoea in the initial training phase. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04151771.

The effect of blood flow restriction exercise on N-lactoylphenylalanine and appetite regulation in obese adults: a cross-design study.

Background: N-lactoylphenylalanine (Lac-Phe) is a new form of "exerkines" closely related to lactate (La), which may be able to inhibit appetite. Blood flow restriction (BFR) can lead to local tissue hypoxia and increase lactate accumulation. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of combining Moderate-intensity Continuous Exercise (MICE) with BFR on Lac-Phe and appetite regulation in obese adults. Methods: This study employed the cross-design study and recruited 14 obese adults aged 18-24 years. The participants were randomly divided into three groups and performed several tests with specific experimental conditions: (1) M group (MICE without BFR, 60%VO2max, 200 kJ); (2) B group (MICE with BFR, 60%VO2max, 200 kJ); and (3) C group (control session without exercise). Participants were given a standardized meal 60 min before exercise and a ad libitum 60 min after exercise. In addition, blood and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were collected before, immediately after, and 1 hour after performing the exercise. Results: No significant difference in each index was detected before exercise. After exercise, the primary differential metabolites detected in the M and B groups were xanthine, La, succinate, Lac-Phe, citrate, urocanic acid, and myristic acid. Apart from that, the major enrichment pathways include the citrate cycle, alanine, aspartate, and glutamate metabolism. The enhanced Lac-Phe and La level in the B group was higher than M and C groups. Hunger of the B group immediately after exercise substantially differed from M group. The total ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide-1 and hunger in the B group 1 hour after exercise differed substantially from M group. The results of calorie intake showed no significant difference among the indexes in each group. Conclusions: In conclusion, this cross-design study demonstrated that the combined MICE and BFR exercise reduced the appetite of obese adults by promoting the secretion of Lac-Phe and ghrelin. However, the exercise did not considerably affect the subsequent ad libitum intake.

Comparing the effect of intermittent blood flow restriction training and high-load resistance training in patients with patellofemoral pain: study protocol for a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Patellofemoral pain (PFP) syndrome is a common knee joint functional disorder. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training has shown promise in improving PFP; however, the effectiveness of intermittent BFR (iBFR) training remains uncertain. This study aims to compare the rehabilitative effects of iBFR combined with low-load resistance training and high-load resistance training in PFP patients and to assess the effectiveness of iBFR combined with low-load resistance training for improving PFP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This randomised, patient-assessor blinded, controlled trial will include 42 eligible PFP patients randomly allocated to an intervention group (iBFR combined with low-load resistance training) or a control group (high-load resistance training) in a 1:1 ratio. Participants will receive interventions three times per week for 8 weeks and will be followed up for 24 weeks. The primary outcome measure is pain, and the secondary outcomes include self-reported function, quality of life, muscle strength and muscle thickness. Assessments will be conducted at baseline, 8 weeks and 24 weeks during follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis will be performed.Collectively, we expect that the findings of this randomised clinical trial will contribute to understanding the potential benefits of iBFR training and provide insightful guidance for developing more effective treatment strategies for patients with PFP. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Sports Science Experiment Ethics Committee of Beijing Sport University (2022274H). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Trial results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300068281).