Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Combined With Resistance Training or Neuromuscular Electrostimulation on Muscle Cross-Sectional Area.

CONTEXT: Low-load resistance training (LL) and neuromuscular electrostimulation (NES), both combined with blood flow restriction (BFR), emerge as effective strategies to maintain or increase muscle mass. It is well established that LL-BFR promotes similar increases in muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and lower rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and pain compared with traditional resistance training protocols. On the other hand, only 2 studies with conflicting results have investigated the effects of NES-BFR on CSA, RPE, and pain. In addition, no study directly compared LL-BFR and NES-BFR. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the effects of LL-BFR and NES-BFR on vastus lateralis CSA, RPE, and pain. Individual response for muscle hypertrophy was also compared between protocols. DESIGN: Intrasubject longitudinal study. SETTING: University research laboratory. INTERVENTION: Fifteen healthy young males (age = 23 [5] y; weight = 77.6 [11.3] kg; height = 1.76 [0.08] m). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Vastus lateralis CSA was measured through ultrasound at baseline (pre) and after 20 training sessions (post). The RPE and pain responses were obtained through modified 10-point scales, handled during all training sessions. RESULTS: Both protocols demonstrated significant increases in muscle CSA (P < .0001). However, the LL-BFR demonstrated significantly greater CSA changes compared with NES-BFR (LL-BFR = 11.2%, NES-BFR = 4.6%; P < .0001). Comparing individual increases in CSA, 12 subjects (85.7% of the sample) presented greater muscle hypertrophy for LL-BFR than for the NES-BFR protocol. In addition, LL-BFR produced significantly lower RPE and pain responses (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The LL-BFR produced significantly greater increases in CSA with significant less RPE and pain than NES-BFR. In addition, LL-BFR resulted in greater individual muscle hypertrophy responses for most subjects compared with NES-BFR.

Muscle damage responses to resistance exercise performed with high-load versus low-load associated with partial blood flow restriction in young women.

The aim of this study was to compare if an acute exercise session of high-load resistance training (HL-RT, e.g. 70% of 1 repetition-maximum, 1 RM) induces a higher magnitude of muscle damage compared with a RT protocol with low-loads (e.g. 20% 1 RM) associated with partial blood flow restriction (LL-BFR), and investigate the recovery in the days after the protocols. We used an unilateral crossover research design in which 10 young women (22(2) y; 162(5) cm; 66(11) kg) performed HL-RT and LL-BFR in a randomized, counterbalanced manner with a minimum interval of 2 weeks between protocols. Indirect muscle damage markers were evaluated before and once a day for 4 days into recovery. Main results showed decreases of 8-12% at 24-48 h in maximal voluntary isometric and concentric contraction torques (P < 0.03), and changes in muscle architecture markers (P < 0.03) for HL-RT and LL-BFR, with no differences between protocols (P > 0.05). Moreover, delayed onset muscle soreness increased only after LL-BFR (P < 0.001). We conclude that an acute bout of low volume HL-RT or LL-BFR to failure resulted in edema-induced muscle swelling, but do not induce major or long-lasting decrements in muscle function and the level of soreness promoted from LL-BFR was mild.

Self-selected vs. Fixed Repetition Duration: Effects on Number of Repetitions and Muscle Activation in Resistance-Trained Men.

Nóbrega, SR, Barroso, R, Ugrinowitsch, C, da Costa, JLF, Alvarez, IF, Barcelos, C, and Libardi, CA. Self-selected vs. fixed repetition duration: effects on number of repetitions and muscle activation in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 32(9): 2419-2424, 2018-The aim of this study was to compare the effects of self-selected and fixed repetition duration (RD) on resistance exercise (RE) volume, muscle activation, and time under tension (TUT) per repetition and per session. Twelve resistance-trained men participated in the study. A randomized cross-over design was used and each participant performed 2 high-intensity RE protocols in a balanced order: (a) 3 sets of RE with self-selected RD (SELF); and (b) 3 sets of RE with fixed RD (2-second concentric and 2-second eccentric [FIX]). Muscle activation was assessed through surface electromyography (EMG) of the vastus lateralis and vastus medialis throughout RE sessions. Overall, RE volume was significantly greater for SELF (p = 0.01), whereas TUT per repetition was significantly greater for FIX (p = 0.0001). No significant differences between protocols were detected for TUT per session. Between-protocol comparisons revealed significantly greater EMG amplitude for SELF compared with FIX at S1 (p = 0.01), S2 (p = 0.03), and S3 (p = 0.03). Both SELF and FIX protocols produced significant increases in EMG amplitude from 25 to 100% (p < 0.001) of set completion. Between-protocol comparisons revealed significantly greater EMG amplitude for SELF compared with FIX at 75% (p = 0.03) and 100% (p = 0.01). In conclusion, self-selected RD resulted in greater volume and muscle activation compared with fixed RD in an RE session.

Hemodynamic Responses to Blood Flow Restriction and Resistance Exercise to Muscular Failure.

The aim of the present study was to compare hemodynamic responses between blood flow-restricted resistance exercise (BFR-RE), high-intensity resistance exercise (HI-RE) and low-intensity resistance exercise (LI-RE) performed to muscular failure. 12 men (age: 20±3 years; body mass: 73.5±9 kg; height: 174±6 cm) performed 4 sets of leg press exercises using BFR-RE (30% of 1-RM), HI-RE (80% of 1-RM) and LI-RE (30% of 1-RM) protocols. Systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), stroke volume (SV), cardiac output (CO) and total peripheral vascular resistance (TPR) were measured on a beat-to-beat continuous basis by a noninvasive photoplethysmographic arterial pressure device. The HI-RE and LI-RE showed higher values (P<0.05) in all of the sets than the BFR-RE for SBP, DBP, HR. Additionally, HI-RE showed higher SBP (4th set) and DBP (all sets) (P<0.05) values than the LI-RE. However, the SV, CO and TPR showed significantly greater values for LI-RE compared to HI-RE and BFR-RE (P<0.05). In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that the BFR-RE promotes a lower hemodynamic response compared to the HI-RE and LI-RE performed to muscular failure.