Implementation and Clinical Outcomes of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Adults With Cerebral Palsy: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cerebral palsy (CP) is a congenital neurological disorder that causes musculoskeletal weakness and biomechanical dysfunctions. Strength training guidelines recommend at least 70% of 1-repetition maximum to increase muscle strength and mass. However, individuals with CP may not tolerate such high exercise intensity. Blood flow restriction (BFR) can induce similar gains in strength and muscle mass using loads as low as 20% to 30% 1-repetition maximum. This case series described the safety, feasibility, and acceptability of BFR in adults with CP and examined changes in muscle mass and strength. CASE DESCRIPTION: Three male participants with gross motor function classification system level 3 CP underwent strength training using a periodized 8-week BFR protocol. Outcomes included: Safety via blood pressure during and post-BFR exercises in addition to adverse event tracking; Feasibility via number of support people and time-duration of BFR exercises; Acceptability via rate of perceived discomfort (0-10) and qualitative interviews; Muscle Mass via ultrasonographic cross-sectional area of the quadriceps and hamstring; and Strength via (1) 3-repetition maximum in the leg press and knee extension, (2) isometric knee flexor and extensor muscle force measured with a hand-held dynamometer, and (3) 30-second sit-to-stand test. INTERVENTION: Participants replaced 2 exercises from their current regimen with seated knee extension and leg press exercises using progressively higher limb occlusion pressure and exercise intensity. Limb occlusion pressure started at 60%, by week 4 progressed to 80%, and then remained constant. The exercise repetition scheme progressed from fixed nonfailure repetition sets to failure-based repetition sets. OUTCOMES: Blood pressure never exceeded safety threshold, and no adverse events were reported. The BFR training was time-consuming and resource-intensive, but well-tolerated by participants (rate of perceived discomfort with a mean value of 5.8, 100% protocol adherence). Strength, as measured by 3-repetition maximum testing and 30-second sit-to-stand test, increased, but isometric muscle force and muscle mass changes were inconsistent. DISCUSSION: Blood flow restriction may be an effective means to increase strength in adults with CP who cannot tolerate high-intensity resistance training. Future research should compare BFR to traditional strength training and investigate mediators of strength changes in this population. VIDEO ABSTRACT AVAILABLE: for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A473).

Hypoalgesia and Conditioned Pain Modulation in Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise.

We compared the magnitude of exercise-induced hypoalgesia and conditioned pain modulation between blood-flow restriction (BFR) resistance exercise (RE) and moderate-intensity RE. Twenty-five asymptomatic participants performed unilateral leg press in two visits. For moderate-intensity RE, subjects exercised at 50% 1RM without BFR whereas BFR RE exercised at 30% 1RM with a cuff inflated to 60% limb occlusion pressure. Exercise-induced hypoalgesia was quantified by pressure pain threshold changes before and after RE. Conditioned pain modulation was tested using cold water as the conditioning stimulus and mechanical pressure as the test stimulus and quantified as pressure pain threshold change. Difference in conditioned pain modulation pre- to post- RE was then calculated. The differences of RE on pain modulations were compared using paired t-tests. Pearson's r was used to examine the correlation between exercise-induced hypoalgesia and changes in conditioned pain modulation. We found greater hypoalgesia with BFR RE compared to moderate-intensity RE (p = 0.008). Significant moderate correlations were found between exercise-induced hypoalgesia and changes in conditioned pain modulation (BFR: r = 0.63, moderate-intensity: r = 0.72). BFR RE has favorable effects on pain modulation in healthy adults and the magnitude of exercise-induced hypoalgesia is positively correlated with conditioned pain modulation activation.

Effect of High-Intensity Interval Exercise versus Continuous Low-Intensity Aerobic Exercise with Blood Flow Restriction on Psychophysiological Responses: A Randomized Crossover Study.

This study compared the effect of continuous low-intensity aerobic exercise with blood flow restriction (LI-AE-BFR) versus high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE), matching total external mechanical work between conditions, on perceptual (exertion, pain, affective and pleasure) and physiological responses (heart rate [HR], blood lactate [BL] and muscle fatigue). Ten healthy untrained men (25.6 ± 3.78 years old; 75.02 ± 12.02 kg; 172.2 ± 6.76 cm; 24.95 ± 3.16 kg/m²) completed three visits to the laboratory. In visit 1, anthropometry, blood pressure and peak running velocity on the treadmill were measured. In visits 2 and 3, participants were randomly assigned to HIIE or LI-AE-BFR, both in treadmill. HIIE consisted of 10 one-minute stimuli at 80% of peak running velocity interspersed with one-minute of passive recovery. LI-AE-BFR consisted of 20-minutes of continuous walking at 40% of peak running velocity with bilateral cuffs inflated to 50% of arterial occlusion pressure. BL and maximum isometric voluntary contraction (MIVC - fatigue measure) were measured pre- and immediately post-exercise. HR, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and rating of perceived pain (RPP) were recorded after each stimulus in HIIE and every two minutes in LI-AE-BFR. Affective response to the session, pleasure, and future intention to exercise (FIE) were assessed 10 minutes after the intervention ended. Increases in BL concentrations were greater in HIIE (p = 0.028; r = 0.51). No effects time or condition were reported for MIVC. HR was higher in HIIE at all analyzed time points (p < 0.001; d = 3.1 to 5.2). RPE did not differ between conditions (p > 0.05), while average session RPP was higher in LI-AE-BFR (p = 0.036; r = 0.46). Affective positive response (p = 0.019; d = 0.9) and FIE (p = 0.013; d = 0.97) were significantly higher in HIIE. Therefore, HIIE elicited higher physiological stress, positive affective response, and intention to engage in future exercise bouts compared to LI-AE-BFR.

Concerns about the application of resistance exercise with blood-flow restriction and thrombosis risk in hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis (HD) per se is a risk factor for thrombosis. Considering the growing body of evidence on blood-flow restriction (BFR) exercise in HD patients, identification of possible risk factors related to the prothrombotic agent D-dimer is required for the safety and feasibility of this training model. The aim of the present study was to identify risk factors associated with higher D-dimer levels and to determine the acute effect of resistance exercise (RE) with BFR on this molecule. METHODS: Two hundred and six HD patients volunteered for this study (all with a glomerular filtration rate of <15 mL/min/1.73 m2). The RE + BFR session consisted of 50% arterial occlusion pressure during 50 min sessions of HD (intradialytic exercise). RE repetitions included concentric and eccentric lifting phases (each lasting 2 s) and were supervised by a strength and conditioning specialist. RESULTS: Several variables were associated with elevated levels of D-dimer, including higher blood glucose, citrate use, recent cardiovascular events, recent intercurrents, higher inflammatory status, catheter as vascular access, older patients (>70 years old), and HD vintage. Furthermore, RE + BFR significantly increases D-dimer after 4 h. Patients with borderline baseline D-dimer levels (400-490 ng/mL) displayed increased risk of elevating D-dimer over the normal range (≥500 ng/mL). CONCLUSION: These results identified factors associated with a heightened prothrombotic state and may assist in the screening process for HD patients who wish to undergo RE + BFR. D-dimer and/or other fibrinolysis factors should be assessed at baseline and throughout the protocol as a precautionary measure to maximize safety during RE + BFR.

Frequentist, Bayesian Analysis and Complementary Statistical Tools for Geriatric and Rehabilitation Fields: Are Traditional Null-Hypothesis Significance Testing Methods Sufficient?

Null hypothesis significant testing (NHST) is the dominant statistical approach in the geriatric and rehabilitation fields. However, NHST is routinely misunderstood or misused. In this case, the findings from clinical trials would be taken as evidence of no effect, when in fact, a clinically relevant question may have a "non-significant" p-value. Conversely, findings are considered clinically relevant when significant differences are observed between groups. To assume that p-value is not an exclusive indicator of an association or the existence of an effect, researchers should be encouraged to report other statistical analysis approaches as Bayesian analysis and complementary statistical tools alongside the p-value (eg, effect size, confidence intervals, minimal clinically important difference, and magnitude-based inference) to improve interpretation of the findings of clinical trials by presenting a more efficient and comprehensive analysis. However, the focus on Bayesian analysis and secondary statistical analyses does not mean that NHST is less important. Only that, to observe a real intervention effect, researchers should use a combination of secondary statistical analyses in conjunction with NHST or Bayesian statistical analysis to reveal what p-values cannot show in the geriatric and rehabilitation studies (eg, the clinical importance of 1kg increase in handgrip strength in the intervention group of long-lived older adults compared to a control group). This paper provides potential insights for improving the interpretation of scientific data in rehabilitation and geriatric fields by utilizing Bayesian and secondary statistical analyses to better scrutinize the results of clinical trials where a p-value alone may not be appropriate to determine the efficacy of an intervention.

Blood pressure responsiveness to resistance training in the hypertensive older adult: a randomized controlled study.

Different lifestyle changes have been employed to improve clinical hypertension. However, there is scarce evidence on the blood pressure responsiveness to resistance training (RT) in hypertensive older adults. Consequently, little is known about some participants clinically reducing blood pressure and others not. Thus, we investigate the effects and responsiveness of RT on blood pressure in hypertensive older adults. We secondarily evaluated the biochemical risk factors for cardiovascular disease and functional performance. Older participants with hypertension were randomly assigned into RT (n = 27) and control group (n = 25). Blood pressure, functional performance (timed up and go, handgrip strength, biceps curl and sit-to-stand), fasting glucose, and lipid profiles were evaluated preintervention and postintervention. The statistic was performed in a single-blind manner, the statistician did not know who was the control and RT. RT was effective in reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP) (pre 135.7 ±â€…14.7; post 124.7 ±â€…11.0; P  < 0.001) and the responses to RT stimuli varied noticeably between hypertensive older adults after 12 weeks. For example, 13 and 1 responders displayed a minimal clinical important difference for SBP attenuation (10.9 mmHg) in the RT and control groups, respectively. RT improved the functional performance of older people with hypertension, while no differences were found in biochemical parameters (triglycerides, HDL, LDL, fasting glucose) after 12 weeks. In conclusion, responses to RT stimuli varied noticeably between hypertensive individuals and RT was effective in reducing SBP.

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.

Autoregulated and Non-Autoregulated Blood Flow Restriction on Acute Arterial Stiffness.

This study aimed to investigate the acute effects of autoregulated and non-autoregulated applied pressures during blood flow restriction resistance exercise to volitional fatigue on indices of arterial stiffness using the Delfi Personalized Tourniquet System. Following a randomized autoregulated or non-autoregulated blood flow restriction familiarization session, 20 physically active adults (23±5 years; 7 females) participated in three randomized treatment-order sessions with autoregulated and non-autoregulated and no blood flow restriction training. Participants performed four sets of dumbbell wall squats to failure using 20% of one repetition maximum. Blood flow restriction was performed with 60% of supine limb occlusion pressure. Testing before and post-session included an ultrasonic scan of the carotid artery, applanation tonometry, and blood pressure acquisition.Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity increased in the non-autoregulated and no blood flow restriction training groups following exercise while carotid-radial pulse wave velocity increased in the no blood flow restriction training group (all p<0.05). Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity exhibited an interaction effect between autoregulated and non-autoregulated blood flow restriction in favor of autoregulated blood flow restriction (p<0.05). Autoregulated blood flow restriction training does not influence indices of arterial stiffness while non-autoregulated and no blood flow restriction training increases central stiffness.

No Differences in Exercise Performance, Perceptual Response, or Safety Were Observed Among 3 Blood Flow Restriction Devices.

Purpose: To compare 3 separate blood flow restriction (BFR) systems in their capacity to reduce repetitions to failure, impact perceptual responses, and cause adverse events during a low-load free-flow exercise. Methods: The study included healthy subjects aged 18 years or older who presented to an ambulatory-care sports medicine clinic. On day 1, participants' demographic characteristics and anthropomorphic measurements were recorded. Each participant performed dumbbell biceps curl repetitions to failure using 20% of his or her 1-repetition maximum weight with each arm. Participants were exposed to 3 different tourniquet systems for familiarization. On day 2, each participant's arm was randomized to a cuff system, and the participant performed 2 sets of biceps curl repetitions to failure with the cuff inflated. Repetitions to failure, rating of perceived effort (RPE), rating of perceived discomfort, and pulse oxygenation levels were recorded after each set. On day 3, participants completed a survey of their perceived delayed-onset muscle soreness. Results: The final analysis was performed on 42 arms, with 14 limbs per system. The study population had a mean age of 28.7 ± 2.4 years and a mean body mass index of 24.9 ± 4.3. All 3 systems successfully reduced repetitions to failure compared with unrestricted low-load exercise from baseline to BFR set 1 and from baseline to BFR set 2. There were no significant between-group differences among BFR systems regarding the number of repetitions to failure performed at baseline versus BFR set 1 or BFR set 2. The Delfi Personalized Tourniquet System (PTS) cohort had the greatest reductions in repetitions to failure from BFR set 1 to BFR set 2 (P = .002) and reported the highest RPE after set 2 (P = .025). Conclusions: The Delfi PTS, SmartCuffs Pro, and BStrong BFR systems were each safe and were able to significantly reduce repetitions to failure compared with a low-load free-flow condition when used in a BFR exercise protocol. The Delfi PTS system may produce a higher RPE with prolonged use in comparison to the other systems. Level of Evidence: Level II, prospective cohort study.

An Updated Panorama of Blood-Flow-Restriction Methods.

BACKGROUND: Exercise with blood-flow restriction (BFR) is being increasingly used by practitioners working with athletic and clinical populations alike. Most early research combined BFR with low-load resistance training and consistently reported increased muscle size and strength without requiring the heavier loads that are traditionally used for unrestricted resistance training. However, this field has evolved with several different active and passive BFR methods emerging in recent research. PURPOSE: This commentary aims to synthesize the evolving BFR methods for cohorts ranging from healthy athletes to clinical or load-compromised populations. In addition, real-world considerations for practitioners are highlighted, along with areas requiring further research. CONCLUSIONS: The BFR literature now incorporates several active and passive methods, reflecting a growing implementation of BFR in sport and allied health fields. In addition to low-load resistance training, BFR is being combined with high-load resistance exercise, aerobic and anaerobic energy systems training of varying intensities, and sport-specific activities. BFR is also being applied passively in the absence of physical activity during periods of muscle disuse or rehabilitation or prior to exercise as a preconditioning or performance-enhancement technique. These various methods have been reported to improve muscular development; cardiorespiratory fitness; functional capacities; tendon, bone, and vascular adaptations; and physical and sport-specific performance and to reduce pain sensations. However, in emerging BFR fields, many unanswered questions remain to refine best practice.

Acute Responses in Blood Flow Restriction Low-intensity Aerobic Training: A Meta-analysis.

The purpose was to determine the effect low-intensity training with blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) versus high-intensity aerobic training (HIT) on acute physiological and perceptual responses. The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, National Library of Medicine, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science databases and the reference list of eligible studies were consulted to identify randomized experimental studies, published until July 4, 2022, that analyzed physiological or perceptual responses between LI-BFR versus HIT in healthy young individuals. Mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used as effect estimates and random effects models were applied in all analyses. Twelve studies were included in this review. During exercise sessions, HIT promoted higher values of heart rate (MD=28.9 bpm; p<0.00001; I 2 =79%), oxygen consumption (SMD=4.01; p<0.00001; I 2 =83%), ventilation (MD=48.03 l/min; p=0.0001; I 2 =97%), effort (SMD=1.54; p=0.003; I 2 =90%) and blood lactate (MD=3.85 mmol/L; p=0.002; I 2 =97%). Perception of pain/discomfort was lower in HIT (SMD=-1.71; p=0.04; I 2 =77.5%). In conclusion, LI-BFR promotes less pronounced physiological responses than HIT but with greater perception of pain.

Reliability and Validity of a Portable Traction Dynamometer in Knee-Strength Extension Tests: An Isometric Strength Assessment in Recreationally Active Men.

BACKGROUND: the study determined the validity and reliability of measurements obtained using the portable traction dynamometer (PTD) (E-Lastic, E-Sports Solutions, Brazil) and the reproducibility between evaluators (precision) in the evaluation of the isometric muscle strength of the knee extensors of healthy male adults, compared to measurements obtained with the "gold standard" computerized dynamometer (CD) (Biodex System 3, Nova York, NY, USA). METHODS: we evaluated sixteen recreationally active men (29.50 ± 7.26 years). The test-retest reliability of both equipment to determine quadriceps strength, agreement analysis, and the minimal important difference were verified. RESULTS: excellent test-retest interrater reliability was observed for absolute and relative measurements, with a low absolute error for both sets of equipment and excellent validity of the PTD against the CD, as verified by linear regression and Pearson's correlation coefficient. CONCLUSIONS: PTD is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the isometric strength of knee extensors, with results similar to the isometric CD "gold standard".

Fiber-Type-Specific Hypertrophy with the Use of Low-Load Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training: A Systematic Review.

Emerging evidence indicates that the use of low-load resistance training in combination with blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) can be an effective method to elicit increases in muscle size, with most research showing similar whole muscle development of the extremities compared to high-load (HL) training. It is conceivable that properties unique to LL-BFR such as greater ischemia, reperfusion, and metabolite accumulation may enhance the stress on type I fibers during training compared to the use of LLs without occlusion. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper was to systematically review the relevant literature on the fiber-type-specific response to LL-BFR and provide insights into future directions for research. A total of 11 studies met inclusion criteria. Results of the review suggest that the magnitude of type I fiber hypertrophy is at least as great, and sometimes greater, than type II hypertrophy when performing LL-BFR. This finding is in contrast to HL training, where the magnitude of type II fiber hypertrophy tends to be substantially greater than that of type I myofibers. However, limited data directly compare training with LL-BFR to nonoccluded LL or HL conditions, thus precluding the ability to draw strong inferences as to whether the absolute magnitude of type I hypertrophy is indeed greater in LL-BFR vs. traditional HL training. Moreover, it remains unclear as to whether combining LL-BFR with traditional HL training may enhance whole muscle hypertrophy via greater increases in type I myofiber cross-sectional area.

Beneath the cuff: Often overlooked and under-reported blood flow restriction device features and their potential impact on practice-A review of the current state of the research.

Training with blood flow restriction (BFR) has been shown to be a useful technique to improve muscle hypertrophy, muscle strength and a host of other physiological benefits in both healthy and clinical populations using low intensities [20%-30% 1-repetition maximum (1RM) or <50% maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max)]. However, as BFR training is gaining popularity in both practice and research, there is a lack of awareness for potentially important design characteristics and features associated with BFR cuff application that may impact the acute and longitudinal responses to training as well as the safety profile of BFR exercise. While cuff width and cuff material have been somewhat addressed in the literature, other cuff design and features have received less attention. This manuscript highlights additional cuff design and features and hypothesizes on their potential to impact the response and safety profile of BFR. Features including the presence of autoregulation during exercise, the type of bladder system used, the shape of the cuff, the set pressure versus the interface pressure, and the bladder length will be addressed as these variables have the potential to alter the responses to BFR training. As more devices enter the marketplace for consumer purchase, investigations specifically looking at their impact is warranted. We propose numerous avenues for future research to help shape the practice of BFR that may ultimately enhance efficacy and safety using a variety of BFR technologies.

Acute effect of low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction on oxidative stress biomarkers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this review was to analyze the acute effects of low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (LLE-BFR) on oxidative stress markers in healthy individuals in comparison with LLE or high-load resistance exercise (HLRE) without BFR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. These searches were performed in CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL and Virtual Health Library- VHL, which includes Lilacs, Medline and SciELO. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed through the PEDro scale and GRADE system, respectively. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized clinical trials were included in this review (total n = 158 subjects). Results showed lower post-exercise damage to lipids (SMD = -0.95 CI 95%: -1.49 to -0. 40, I2 = 0%, p = 0.0007), proteins (SMD = -1.39 CI 95%: -2.11 to -0.68, I2 = 51%, p = 0.0001) and redox imbalance (SMD = -0.96 CI 95%: -1.65 to -0.28, I2 = 0%, p = 0.006) in favor of LLRE-BFR compared to HLRE. HLRE presents higher post-exercise superoxide dismutase activity but in the other biomarkers and time points, no significant differences between conditions were observed. For LLRE-BFR and LLRE, we found no difference between the comparisons performed at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence from randomized trials, providing very low or low certainty of evidence, this review demonstrates that LLRE-BFR promotes less oxidative stress when compared to HLRE but no difference in levels of oxidative damage biomarkers and endogenous antioxidants between LLRE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Register number: PROSPERO number: CRD42020183204.

Cardiovascular and Perceptual Responses to Resistance Training with Practical Blood Flow Restriction Induced by a Non-Elastic Band vs. Pneumatic Cuff: A Crossover Randomized Study.

Our purpose in this study was to analyze perceptual and cardiovascular responses in low-load resistance training (RT) sessions associated with a fixed non-elastic band compressed to the proximal region of the arms (p-BFR) versus a pneumatic cuff inflated to a pressure of 150 mmHg (t-BFR). Participants (16 healthy trained men) were randomly assigned to two conditions of low-load RT (20% one repetition maximum [1RM]) with BFR (p-BFR or t-BFR). In both conditions, the participants performed five exercises (4 sets/30-15-15-15) for the upper-limbs, but in one of the conditions, the exercises were performed with a p-BFR induced by a non-elastic band, while in the other, the exercises were performed with a t-BFR using a device with similar width. The devices used to generate the BFR had similar widths (5 cm). Brachial blood pressure (bBP) and heart rate (HR) were measured before, after each exercise and after the experimental session (5-, 10-, 15-, and 20 min post-session). Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and rating of pain perception (RPP) were reported after each exercise and 15 minutes post-session. HR increased during the training session in both conditions, with no differences between p-BFR and t-BFR. Neither intervention increased diastolic BP (DBP) during training, but there was a significant post-session reduction in DBP in the p-BFR, with no differences observed between conditions. There were no significant differences in RPE and RPP in the two training conditions, with both conditions associated with higher RPE and RPP at the end versus beginning of the experimental session. We conclude that when BFR device width and material are similar, low-load training with t-BFR and p-BFR promotes similar acute perceptual and cardiovascular responses in healthy trained men.