Manoel E Lixandrão1, Carlos Ugrinowitsch1, Gilberto Laurentino1, Cleiton A Libardi2, André Y Aihara3, Fabiano N Cardoso3, Valmor Tricoli1, Hamilton Roschel4. 1. School of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo, Av Prof. Mello Moraes, 65, Butantã, São Paulo, SP, 05508-030, Brazil. 2. Department of Physical Education, Center of Biological and Health Sciences, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil. 3. Diagnósticos das Américas S/A (DASA), São Paulo, Brazil. 4. School of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo, Av Prof. Mello Moraes, 65, Butantã, São Paulo, SP, 05508-030, Brazil. hars@usp.br.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared the effects of different protocols of blood-flow restriction training (BFRT) with different occlusion pressures and/or exercise intensities on muscle mass and strength. We also compared BFRT protocols with conventional high-intensity resistance training (RT). METHODS: Twenty-six subjects had each leg allocated to two of five protocols. BFRT protocols were performed at either 20 or 40 % 1-RM with either 40 or 80 % occlusion pressure: BFRT20/40, BFRT20/80, BFRT40/40, and BFRT40/80. Conventional RT was performed at 80 % 1-RM (RT80) without blood-flow restriction. Maximum dynamic strength (1-RM) and quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA) were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks. RESULTS: Regarding muscle mass, increasing occlusion pressure was effective only at very low intensity (BFRT20/40 0.78 % vs. BFRT20/80 3.22 %). No additional increase was observed at higher intensities (BFRT40/40 4.45 % vs. BFRT40/80 5.30 %), with no difference between the latter protocols and RT80 (5.90 %). Exercise intensity played a role in CSA when comparing groups with similar occlusion pressure. Muscle strength was similarly increased among BFRT groups (~12.10 %) but to a lesser extent than RT80 (21.60 %). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, BFRT protocols benefit from higher occlusion pressure (80 %) when exercising at very low intensities. Conversely, occlusion pressure seems secondary to exercise intensity in more intense (40 % 1-RM) BFRT protocols. Finally, when considering muscle strength, BFRT protocols seem less effective than high-intensity RT.
PURPOSE: We compared the effects of different protocols of blood-flow restriction training (BFRT) with different occlusion pressures and/or exercise intensities on muscle mass and strength. We also compared BFRT protocols with conventional high-intensity resistance training (RT). METHODS: Twenty-six subjects had each leg allocated to two of five protocols. BFRT protocols were performed at either 20 or 40 % 1-RM with either 40 or 80 % occlusion pressure: BFRT20/40, BFRT20/80, BFRT40/40, and BFRT40/80. Conventional RT was performed at 80 % 1-RM (RT80) without blood-flow restriction. Maximum dynamic strength (1-RM) and quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA) were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks. RESULTS: Regarding muscle mass, increasing occlusion pressure was effective only at very low intensity (BFRT20/40 0.78 % vs. BFRT20/80 3.22 %). No additional increase was observed at higher intensities (BFRT40/40 4.45 % vs. BFRT40/80 5.30 %), with no difference between the latter protocols and RT80 (5.90 %). Exercise intensity played a role in CSA when comparing groups with similar occlusion pressure. Muscle strength was similarly increased among BFRT groups (~12.10 %) but to a lesser extent than RT80 (21.60 %). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, BFRT protocols benefit from higher occlusion pressure (80 %) when exercising at very low intensities. Conversely, occlusion pressure seems secondary to exercise intensity in more intense (40 % 1-RM) BFRT protocols. Finally, when considering muscle strength, BFRT protocols seem less effective than high-intensity RT.
Authors: Cameron J Mitchell; Tyler A Churchward-Venne; Daniel W D West; Nicholas A Burd; Leigh Breen; Steven K Baker; Stuart M Phillips Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2012-04-19
Authors: Jeremy P Loenneke; Jacob M Wilson; Pedro J Marín; Michael C Zourdos; Michael G Bemben Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Jeremy P Loenneke; Daeyeol Kim; Christopher A Fahs; Robert S Thiebaud; Takashi Abe; Rebecca D Larson; Debra A Bemben; Michael G Bemben Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: G Laurentino; C Ugrinowitsch; A Y Aihara; A R Fernandes; A C Parcell; M Ricard; V Tricoli Journal: Int J Sports Med Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 3.118
Authors: Johnny G Owens; Michelle R Rauzi; Andrew Kittelson; Jeremy Graber; Michael J Bade; Julia Johnson; Dustin Nabhan Journal: Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med Date: 2020-04
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: Tyler J Singer; Jon Stavres; Steven J Elmer; Matthew A Kilgas; Brandon S Pollock; Sarah G Kearney; John McDaniel Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Anders Falk Brekke; Anders Nordahl Sørensen; Christel Buhr; Íris O Johannesdottír; Thomas Linding Jakobsen Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2020-10
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
Authors: Daniel Zanardini Fernandes; Vinicius Müller Reis Weber; Marcos Paulo Amaral da Silva; Natã Gomes de Lima Stavinski; Lucas Eduardo Campos de Oliveira; Eduardo Henrique Casoto Tracz; Sandra Aires Ferreira; Danilo Fernandes da Silva; Marcos Roberto Queiroga Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2020-12
Authors: Victor Sabino de Queiros; Matheus Dantas; Gabriel Rodrigues Neto; Luiz Felipe da Silva; Marina Gonçalves Assis; Paulo Francisco Almeida-Neto; Paulo Moreira Silva Dantas; Breno Guilherme de Araújo Tinôco Cabral Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 1.889