Adding vibration to high-intensity intervals increase time at high oxygen uptake in well-trained cyclists.

The importance of accumulated time ≥90% of maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max ) to improve performance in well-trained endurance athletes is well established. The present study compared the acute effects of adding vibrations (VIB; 40 Hz) with the work intervals during a high-intensity cycling session (HIT) with a traditional HIT session without vibration (TRAD) on time ≥90% of VO2max , time ≥90% of peak heart rate (HRpeak ), electromyography (EMG) activity, and mean power in well-trained cyclists (n = 10, VO2max =78.6 ± 7.4 mL/min/kg). The order of VIB and TRAD was randomized and consisted of 6 × 5-minutes work intervals performed with the highest possible mean power across the work intervals (2.5-minutes standardized relief periods). VIB was superior to TRAD on time ≥90% of VO2max , (10.99 ± 7.00 vs 6.95 ± 5.28 minutes, respectively), time ≥90% of HRpeak (24.61 ± 2.38 vs 19.97 ± 4.12 minutes, respectively), and averaged EMG activity in m. Vastus Lateralis during the work intervals (all P < 0.05). The EMG/power output ratio across all work intervals was higher in VIB than TRAD (P < 0.05). Mean values across work intervals showed no difference between VIB and TRAD in mean power, rate of perceived exertion, or blood lactate concentration. Thus, the present study indicated that adding vibration to the work intervals during a HIT session can acutely increase the physiological responses of the cardiovascular system and increase time ≥90% VO2max and should therefore be considered in order to optimize the exercise stimulus of well-trained cyclists.

Acute cellular and molecular responses and chronic adaptations to low-load blood flow restriction and high-load resistance exercise in trained individuals.

Blood flow restriction (BFR) with low-load resistance exercise (RE) is often used as a surrogate to traditional high-load RE to stimulate muscular adaptations, such as hypertrophy and strength. However, it is not clear whether such adaptations are achieved through similar cellular and molecular processes. We compared changes in muscle function, morphology, and signaling pathways between these differing training protocols. Twenty-one males and females (means ± SD: 24.3 ± 3.1 yr) experienced with resistance training (4.9 ± 2.6 yr) performed 9 wk of resistance training (three times per week) with either high-loads (75%-80% 1RM; HL-RT), or low-loads with BFR (30%-40% 1RM; LL-BFR). Before and after the training intervention, resting muscle biopsies were collected, and quadricep cross-sectional area (CSA), muscular strength, and power were measured. Approximately 5 days following the intervention, the same individuals performed an additional "acute" exercise session under the same conditions, and serial muscle biopsies were collected to assess hypertrophic- and ribosomal-based signaling stimuli. Quadricep CSA increased with both LL-BFR (7.4 ± 4.3%) and HL-RT (4.6 ± 2.9%), with no significant differences between training groups (P = 0.37). Muscular strength also increased in both training groups, but with superior gains in squat 1RM occurring with HL-RT (P < 0.01). Acute phosphorylation of several key proteins involved in hypertrophy signaling pathways, and expression of ribosomal RNA transcription factors occurred to a similar degree with LL-BFR and HL-RT (all P > 0.05 for between-group comparisons). Together, these findings validate low-load resistance training with continuous BFR as an effective alternative to traditional high-load resistance training for increasing muscle hypertrophy in trained individuals.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) is an effective method for stimulating muscular adaptations, but phenotypical and mechanistic comparisons with traditional high-load training (HL-RT) in trained populations are scarce. The findings indicate that hypertrophy, but not strength, is comparable between LL-BFR and HL-RT, and the acute cellular and molecular processes for hypertrophy were similar, but not identical, between protocols. Thus, LL-BFR is an effective alternative to HL-RT for obtaining hypertrophy in trained populations.