INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the acute and chronic skeletal muscle response to differing levels of blood flow restriction (BFR) pressure. METHODS: Fourteen participants completed elbow flexion exercise with pressures from 40% to 90% of arterial occlusion. Pre/post torque measurements and electromyographic (EMG) amplitude of each set were quantified for each condition. This was followed by a separate 8-week training study of the effect of high (90% arterial occlusion) and low (40% arterial occlusion) pressure on muscle size and function. RESULTS: For the acute study, decreases in torque were similar between pressures [-15.5 (5.9) Nm, P = 0.344]. For amplitude of the first 3 and last 3 reps there was a time effect. After training, increases in muscle size (10%), peak isotonic strength (18%), peak isokinetic torque (180°/s = 23%, 60°/s = 11%), and muscular endurance (62%) changed similarly between pressures. CONCLUSION: We suggest that higher relative pressures may not be necessary when exercising under BFR.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the acute and chronic skeletal muscle response to differing levels of blood flow restriction (BFR) pressure. METHODS: Fourteen participants completed elbow flexion exercise with pressures from 40% to 90% of arterial occlusion. Pre/post torque measurements and electromyographic (EMG) amplitude of each set were quantified for each condition. This was followed by a separate 8-week training study of the effect of high (90% arterial occlusion) and low (40% arterial occlusion) pressure on muscle size and function. RESULTS: For the acute study, decreases in torque were similar between pressures [-15.5 (5.9) Nm, P = 0.344]. For amplitude of the first 3 and last 3 reps there was a time effect. After training, increases in muscle size (10%), peak isotonic strength (18%), peak isokinetic torque (180°/s = 23%, 60°/s = 11%), and muscular endurance (62%) changed similarly between pressures. CONCLUSION: We suggest that higher relative pressures may not be necessary when exercising under BFR.
Authors: Marty D Spranger; Abhinav C Krishnan; Phillip D Levy; Donal S O'Leary; Scott A Smith Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Manoel E Lixandrão; Carlos Ugrinowitsch; Gilberto Laurentino; Cleiton A Libardi; André Y Aihara; Fabiano N Cardoso; Valmor Tricoli; Hamilton Roschel Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Ethan C Hill; Terry J Housh; Joshua L Keller; Cory M Smith; Richard J Schmidt; Glen O Johnson Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Scott J Dankel; Samuel L Buckner; Matthew B Jessee; Kevin T Mattocks; J Grant Mouser; Brittany R Counts; Gilberto C Laurentino; Takashi Abe; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Samuel L Buckner; Scott J Dankel; Brittany R Counts; Matthew B Jessee; J Grant Mouser; Kevin T Mattocks; Gilberto C Laurentino; Takashi Abe; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: J Physiol Sci Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 2.781
Authors: Zachary W Bell; Matthew B Jessee; Kevin T Mattocks; Samuel L Buckner; Scott J Dankel; J Grant Mouser; Takashi Abe; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Int J Exerc Sci Date: 2020-02-01
Authors: Manoel E Lixandrão; Carlos Ugrinowitsch; Ricardo Berton; Felipe C Vechin; Miguel S Conceição; Felipe Damas; Cleiton A Libardi; Hamilton Roschel Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Matthew B Jessee; J Grant Mouser; Samuel L Buckner; Scott J Dankel; Kevin T Mattocks; Takashi Abe; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: J Physiol Sci Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 2.781
Authors: Zachary W Bell; Samuel L Buckner; Matthew B Jessee; J Grant Mouser; Kevin T Mattocks; Scott J Dankel; Takashi Abe; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 3.078