Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Differential training benefits and motor unit remodeling in wrist force precision tasks following high and low load blood flow restriction exercises under volume-matched conditions.
Lin, Yen-Ting; Wong, Chun-Man; Chen, Yi-Ching; Chen, Yueh; Hwang, Ing-Shiou.
Afiliação
  • Lin YT; Department of Ball Sport, National Taiwan University of Sport, Taichung City, Taiwan.
  • Wong CM; Department of Physical Therapy, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City, Taiwan.
  • Chen YC; Department of Physical Therapy, College of Medical Science and Technology, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung City, Taiwan.
  • Chen Y; Orthopedic Department, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital Tainan Branch, Tainan City, Taiwan.
  • Hwang IS; Department of Physical Therapy, College of Medical Science and Technology, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung City, Taiwan. ishwang@mail.ncku.edu.tw.
J Neuroeng Rehabil ; 21(1): 123, 2024 Jul 19.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39030574
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance training has demonstrated efficacy in promoting strength gains beneficial for rehabilitation. Yet, the distinct functional advantages of BFR strength training using high-load and low-load protocols remain unclear. This study explored the behavioral and neurophysiological mechanisms that explain the differing effects after volume-matched high-load and low-load BFR training.

METHODS:

Twenty-eight healthy participants were randomly assigned to the high-load blood flow restriction (BFR-HL, n = 14) and low-load blood flow restriction (BFR-LL, n = 14) groups. They underwent 3 weeks of BFR training for isometric wrist extension at intensities of 25% or 75% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) with matched training volume. Pre- and post-tests included MVC and trapezoidal force-tracking tests (0-75%-0% MVC) with multi-channel surface electromyography (EMG) from the extensor digitorum.

RESULTS:

The BFR-HL group exhibited a greater strength gain than that of the BFR-LL group after training (BFR_HL 26.96 ± 16.33% vs. BFR_LL 11.16 ± 15.34%)(p = 0.020). However, only the BFR-LL group showed improvement in force steadiness for tracking performance in the post-test (p = 0.004), indicated by a smaller normalized change in force fluctuations compared to the BFR-HL group (p = 0.048). After training, the BFR-HL group activated motor units (MUs) with higher recruitment thresholds (p < 0.001) and longer inter-spike intervals (p = 0.002), contrary to the BFR-LL group, who activated MUs with lower recruitment thresholds (p < 0.001) and shorter inter-spike intervals (p < 0.001) during force-tracking. The discharge variability (p < 0.003) and common drive index (p < 0.002) of MUs were consistently reduced with training for the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

BFR-HL training led to greater strength gains, while BFR-LL training better improved force precision control due to activation of MUs with lower recruitment thresholds and higher discharge rates.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Punho / Eletromiografia / Treinamento Resistido Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Punho / Eletromiografia / Treinamento Resistido Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article