Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The acute muscular response to passive movement and blood flow restriction.
Park, Joonsun; Stanford, Daphney M; Buckner, Samuel L; Jessee, Matthew B.
Afiliación
  • Park J; Applied Physiology Laboratory, School of Kinesiology and Nutrition, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, USA.
  • Stanford DM; Applied Human Health and Physical Function Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise Science and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.
  • Buckner SL; USF Muscle Laboratory, Division of Exercise Science, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
  • Jessee MB; Applied Human Health and Physical Function Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise Science and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.
Clin Physiol Funct Imaging ; 40(5): 351-359, 2020 Sep.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32511829
PURPOSE: To compare the acute effects of passive movement combined with blood flow restriction (PM + BFR) to passive movement (PM) or blood flow restriction alone (BFR). METHODS: A total of 20 healthy participants completed: time control (TC), PM, BFR and PM + BFR (one per leg, over 2 days; randomized). For PM, a dynamometer moved the leg through 3 sets of 15 knee extensions/flexions (90° at 45°/second). For BFR, a cuff was inflated to 80% arterial occlusion pressure on the upper leg. Measurements consisted of anterior muscle thickness at 60% and 70% of the upper leg before and after (-0, -5 and -10 min) conditions, ratings of perceived effort and discomfort before conditions and after each set, and of the vastus lateralis during conditions. Data, presented as mean (SD), were compared using Bayesian RMANOVA, except for perceived effort and discomfort, which were compared using a Friedman's test (non-parametric). RESULTS: 60% (Δcm before-after-0: TC = 0.04 [0.09], PM = -0.01 [0.15], BFR = 0.00 [0.11], PM + BFR = 0.01 [0.22]) and 70% (Δcm before-after-0: TC = 0.01 [0.09], PM = -0.01 [0.15], BFR = 0.02 [0.11], PM + BFR = -0.03 [0.22]) muscle thickness did not change. Perceived effort was greater than TC following PM (p = .05) and PM + BFR (p = .001). Perceived discomfort was greater following BFR and PM + BFR compared to TC (all p ≤ .002) and PM (all p ≤ .010). Changes in deoxygenation (e.g. channel 1; ΔµM start set 1-end set 3: TC = 0.9 [1.2], PM = -1.2 [1.9], BFR = 10.3 [2.7], PM + BFR = 10.3 [3.0]) were generally greater with BFR and PM + BFR (BFinclusion  = 1.210e + 13). CONCLUSION: Acute muscular responses to PM + BFR are not augmented over the effect of BFR alone.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Entrenamiento de Fuerza Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Asunto de la revista: FISIOLOGIA / PATOLOGIA Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Entrenamiento de Fuerza Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Asunto de la revista: FISIOLOGIA / PATOLOGIA Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Reino Unido