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.

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.

Metabolic and hormonal responses to chronic blood-flow restricted resistance training in chronic kidney disease: a randomized trial.

Maintenance of glycemic and lipemic homeostasis can limit the progression of diabetic kidney disease. Resistance training (RT) is effective in controlling glycemia and lipemia in kidney disease; however, the effect of RT with blood flow restriction (RT+BFR) on these metabolic factors has not been investigated. We aimed to verify if chronic (6 months) RT and RT+BFR performed by patients with stage-2 chronic kidney disease (CKD) improves their glycemic homeostasis and immunometabolic profiles. Patients with CKD under conservative treatment (n = 105 (33 females)) from both sexes were randomized into control (n = 35 (11 females); age 57.6 ± 5.2 years), RT (n = 35 (12 females); age 58.0 ± 6.2 years), and RT+BFR (n = 35 (10 females); 58.0 ± 6.4 years) groups. Chronic RT or RT+BFR (6 months) was performed 3 times per week on non-consecutive days with training loading adjusted every 2 months, RT 50%-60%-70% of 1RM, and RT+BFR 30%-40%+50% of 1RM and fixed repetition number. Renal function was estimated with the glomerular filtration rate and serum albumin level. Metabolic, hormonal, and inflammatory assessments were analyzed from blood samples. Six months of RT and RT+BFR were similarly effective in improving glucose homeostasis and hormone mediators of glucose uptake (e.g., irisin, adiponectin, and sirtuin-1), decreasing pro-inflammatory and fibrotic proteins, and attenuating the progression of estimated glomerular filtration rate. Thus, RT+BFR can be considered an additional exercise modality to be included in the treatment of patients with stage 2 chronic kidney disease. Trial registration number: U1111-1237-8231. URL: http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-3gpg5w/, no. RBR-3gpg5w. Novelty: Glycemic regulation induced by resistance training prevents the progression of CKD. Chronic RT and RT+BFR promote similar changes in glycemic regulation. RT and RT+BFR can be considered as non-pharmacological tools for the treatment of CKD.

Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Blood Perfusion and Work Ability of Muscles in Elite Para-alpine Skiers.

PURPOSE: The effects of short-term blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise on muscle blood flow perfusion and performance during high-intensity exercise were determined in elite para-alpine standing skiers to assess whether this would be an effective training regimen for elite athletes with disabilities. METHODS: Nine national-level para-alpine standing skiers (mean age, 20.67 ± 1.34 yr; four women) were recruited. Nondominant lower limbs were trained with BFR (eight in final analyses), and dominant lower limbs were trained without BFR (seven in final analyses). The 2-wk protocol included high-load resistance, local muscle endurance (circuit resistance training), and aerobic endurance (stationary cycling) training performed 4 times a week, with BFR during local muscle endurance and aerobic endurance sessions. Muscle strength was measured by maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) in the knee extensors; microcirculatory blood perfusion (MBP), by laser Doppler blood flow; and muscle strength and endurance, by the total amount of work (TW) performed during high-intensity centrifugal and concentric contractions. RESULTS: BFR significantly increased absolute and relative MVIC (P < 0.001, P = 0.001), MBP (P = 0.011, P = 0.008), and TW (P = 0.006, P = 0.007) from pretraining values, whereas only absolute MVIC increased without BFR (P = 0.047). However, the MVIC increase with BFR exercise (35.88 ± 14.83 N·m) was significantly greater (P = 0.040) than without BFR exercise (16.71 ± 17.79 N·m). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term BFR exercise significantly increased strength endurance, muscle strength, and MBP in national-level para-alpine standing skiers. Our study provides new evidence that BFR exercise can improve local muscle blood perfusion during high-intensity exercise and informs BFR exercise strategies for athletes with disabilities.

Efficacy and Safety of Blood Flow Restriction Training in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of blood flow restriction training (BFRT) in the treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHOD: Seven electronic databases were searched to identify trials comparing BFRT and conventional resistance training in a population with knee OA. Studies were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated to compare outcome measures of the groups. The methodologic quality of selected studies and the quality of evidence were evaluated for included studies. RESULTS: A total of 5 studies were included in this meta-analysis, with very low to moderate risk of bias. The pooled results showed no significant difference between BFRT and conventional resistance training for knee OA, including pain (SMD -0.04 [95% CI -0.31, 0.24], P = 0.79), physical function performance (SMD 0.12 [95% CI -0.55, 0.78], P = 0.73), self-reported function (SMD 0.14 [95% CI -0.24, 0.52], P = 0.48), and adverse events (RR 0.45 [95% CI 0.20, 1.01], P = 0.05). In subgroup analysis, BFRT had a lower incidence of adverse events when compared with high-load resistance training (HLRT). CONCLUSION: Data from pooled studies showed that BFRT may not have greater efficacy for treating patients with knee OA, and it is less likely to have a higher risk of adverse events. However, limited evidence supports the idea that BFRT is likely safer than HLRT. More evidence with high quality is needed in further research on efficacy and safety.

The effects of resistance training with blood flow restriction on muscle strength, muscle hypertrophy and functionality in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis(RA) and osteoarthritis(OA) patients showed systemic manifestations that may lead to a reduction in muscle strength, muscle mass and, consequently, to a reduction in functionality. On the other hand, moderate intensity resistance training(MIRT) and high intensity resistance training(HIRT) are able to improve muscle strength and muscle mass in RA and OA without affecting the disease course. However, due to the articular manifestations caused by these diseases, these patients may present intolerance to MIRT or HIRT. Thus, the low intensity resistance training combined with blood flow restriction(LIRTBFR) may be a new training strategy for these populations. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis to verify the effects of LIRTBFR on muscle strength, muscle mass and functionality in RA and OA patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials(RCTs), published in English, between 1957-2021, was conducted using MEDLINE(PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library. The methodological quality was assessed using Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB2.0. Mean difference(MD) or standardized mean difference(SMD) and 95% confidence intervals(CI) were pooled using a random-effects model. A P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included. We found no significant differences in the effects between LIRTBFR, MIRT and HIRT on muscle strength, which was assessed by tests of quadriceps strength(SMD = -0.01[-0.57, 0.54], P = 0.96; I² = 58%) and functionality measured by tests with patterns similar to walking(SMD = -0.04[-0.39, 0.31], P = 0.82; I² = 0%). Compared to HIRT, muscle mass gain after LIRTBFR was reported to be similar. When comparing LIRTBFR with low intensity resistance training without blood flow restriction(LIRT), the effect LIRTBFR was reported to be higher on muscle strength, which was evaluated by the knee extension test. CONCLUSION: LIRTBFR appears to be a promising strategy for gains in muscle strength, muscle mass and functionality in a predominant sample of RA and OA women.

Unilateral, bilateral, and alternating muscle actions elicit similar muscular responses during low load blood flow restriction exercise.

PURPOSE: Compare acute muscular responses to unilateral, bilateral, and alternating blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise. METHODS: Maximal strength was tested on visit one. On visits 2-4, 2-10 days apart, 19 participants completed 4 sets of knee extensions (30% one-repetition maximum) with BFR (40% arterial occlusion pressure) to momentary failure (inability to lift load) using each muscle action (counterbalanced order). Ultrasound muscle thickness was measured at 60% and 70% of the anterior thigh before (Pre), immediately (Post-0), and 5 min (Post-5) after exercise. Surface electromyography and tissue deoxygenation were measured throughout. Results, presented as means, were analyzed with a three-way (sex by time by condition) Bayesian RMANOVA. RESULTS: There was a time by sex interaction (BFinclusion: 5.489) for left leg 60% muscle thickness (cm). However, changes from Pre to Post-0 (males: 0.39 vs females: 0.26; BF10: 0.839), Post-0 to Post-5 (males: - 0.05 vs females: - 0.06; BF10: 0.456), and Pre to Post-5 (males: 0.34 vs females: 0.20; BF10: 0.935) did not differ across sex. For electromyography (%MVC), there was a sex by condition interaction (BFinclusion: 550.472) with alternating having higher muscle excitation for females (16) than males (9; BF10: 5.097). Tissue deoxygenation (e.g. channel 1, µM) increased more for males (sets 1: 11.17; 2: 2.91; 3: 3.69; 4: 3.38) than females (sets 1: 4.49; 2: 0.24; 3: - 0.10; 4: - 0.06) from beginning to end of sets (all BFinclusion ≥ 4.295e + 7). For repetitions, there was an interaction (BFinclusion: 17.533), with alternating completing more than bilateral and unilateral for set one (100; 56; 50, respectively) and two (34; 16; 18, respectively). CONCLUSION: Alternating, bilateral, and unilateral BFR exercise elicit similar acute muscular responses.