| Literature DB >> 22415101 |
Tadashi Suga1, Koichi Okita, Shingo Takada, Masashi Omokawa, Tomoyasu Kadoguchi, Takashi Yokota, Kagami Hirabayashi, Masashige Takahashi, Noriteru Morita, Masahiro Horiuchi, Shintaro Kinugawa, Hiroyuki Tsutsui.
Abstract
Our previous study reported that intramuscular metabolic stress during low-intensity resistance exercise was significantly enhanced by combining blood flow restriction (BFR); however, they did not reach the levels achieved during high-intensity resistance exercise. That study was performed using a single set of exercise; however, usual resistance exercise consists of multiple sets with rest intervals. Therefore, we investigated the intramuscular metabolic stress during multiple-set BFR exercises, and compared the results with those during multiple-set high-intensity resistance exercise. Twelve healthy young subjects performed 3 sets of 1-min unilateral plantar flexion (30 repetitions) with 1-min intervals under 4 different conditions: low intensity (L, 20% 1 RM) and high intensity (H, 65% 1 RM) without BFR, and L with intermittent BFR (IBFR, only during exercise) and with continuous BFR (CBFR, during rest intervals as well as exercise). Intramuscular metabolic stress, defined as intramuscular metabolites and pH, and muscle fiber recruitment were evaluated by 31P-magnetic resonance spectroscopy. The changes of intramuscular metabolites and pH during IBFR were significantly greater than those in L but significantly lower than those in H. By contrast, those changes in CBFR were similar to those in H. Moreover, the fast-twitch fiber recruitment, evaluating by a splitting Pi peak, showed a similar level to H. In conclusion, the multiple sets of low-intensity resistance exercise with continuous BFR could achieve with the same metabolic stress as multiple sets of high-intensity resistance exercise.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22415101 PMCID: PMC3474903 DOI: 10.1007/s00421-012-2377-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol ISSN: 1439-6319 Impact factor: 3.078
Intramuscular metabolite concentrations and pH at rest and the end of final set
| L | BFR protocols | H | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IBFR | CBFR | |||
| Pi, mM | ||||
| Rest | 5.1 ± 0.2 | 4.6 ± 0.2 | 4.8 ± 0.3 | 4.5 ± 0.3 |
| End of final set | 11.2 ± 0.7* | 17.5 ± 1.3*† | 27.0 ± 1.5*†‡ | 26.6 ± 1.3*†‡ |
| H2PO4 −, mM | ||||
| Rest | 1.8 ± 0.3 | 1.6 ± 0.3 | 1.7 ± 0.4 | 1.6 ± 0.3 |
| End of final set | 3.9 ± 0.9* | 6.8 ± 2.6*† | 12.2 ± 3.0*†‡ | 11.6 ± 2.9*†‡ |
| Intramuscular pH | ||||
| Rest | 7.01 ± 0.01 | 7.01 ± 0.02 | 7.01 ± 0.02 | 7.00 ± 0.02 |
| End of final set | 7.03 ± 0.02 | 6.96 ± 0.07*† | 6.84 ± 0.07*†‡ | 6.87 ± 0.07*†‡ |
Values are mean ± SD
BFR blood flow restriction, L low-intensity resistance exercise at 20 % 1RM, H high-intensity resistance exercise at 65 % 1RM, IBFR intermittent BFR exercise protocol, CBFR continuous BFR exercise protocol
* Significant difference (P < 0.05) between rest and the end of final, †significant difference (P < 0.05) from L, ‡significant difference (P < 0.05) from IBFR
Fig. 1Time course of phosphocreatine (PCr) concentration during exercise protocols Symbols indicate means and error bars indicate SE. Significant difference between condition;*P < 0.05 versus L, † P < 0.05 versus IBFR
Fig. 2The number of subjects who showed split-peak Pi. *P < 0.05 versus L, † P < 0.05 versus IBFR