Scott J Dankel1, Samuel L Buckner1, Matthew B Jessee1, Kevin T Mattocks1, J Grant Mouser1, Brittany R Counts1, Gilberto C Laurentino1, Takashi Abe2, Jeremy P Loenneke3. 1. Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, P.O. Box 1848, University, MS, 38677, USA. 2. National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Kanoya, Kanoya, Kagoshima, Japan. 3. Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, P.O. Box 1848, University, MS, 38677, USA. jploenne@olemiss.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Applying blood flow restriction during low-load resistance training has been shown to augment muscle hypertrophy which has been attributed to metabolic accumulation. It remains unknown, however, whether metabolites can augment muscle growth when maintained post-exercise. METHODS:Thirteen untrained individuals (6 males and 7 females) performed 24 training sessions. The control arm performed one set of elbow flexion (70 % 1RM) to volitional fatigue, while the experimental arm performed the same protocol immediately followed by 3 min of blood flow restriction (70 % arterial occlusion). Muscle growth (ultrasound) was measured at 50, 60, and 70 % of the distance between the lateral epicondyle and acromion process. RESULTS: Both conditions completed the same exercise volume [3678 (95 % CI 2962, 4393) vs. 3638 kg (95 % CI 2854, 4423)]. There was a condition by time interaction (p = 0.031) demonstrating an attenuation of muscle growth at the 60 % site in the experimental [pre 3.1 (95 % CI 2.8, 3.5), post 3.1 (95 % CI 2.7, 3.5) cm] vs. control [pre 3.1 (95 % CI 2.6, 3.6), post 3.3 (95 % CI 2.8, 3.7) cm] condition. Muscle growth at the 50 % and 70 % sites was similar at the group level, although there were attenuations at the individual level. Exploratory analyses of pre-post mean (95 % CI) changes in muscle thickness suggested that this attenuation in the experimental condition occurred only in females [50 % site 0.0 (-0.2, 0.0) cm; 60 % site -0.1 (-0.3, 0.0) cm; 70 % site 0.0 (-0.1, 0.1) cm]. CONCLUSIONS: The application of blood flow restriction post high-load training did not augment muscle growth for either sex, and appeared to attenuate muscle growth among females.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Applying blood flow restriction during low-load resistance training has been shown to augment muscle hypertrophy which has been attributed to metabolic accumulation. It remains unknown, however, whether metabolites can augment muscle growth when maintained post-exercise. METHODS: Thirteen untrained individuals (6 males and 7 females) performed 24 training sessions. The control arm performed one set of elbow flexion (70 % 1RM) to volitional fatigue, while the experimental arm performed the same protocol immediately followed by 3 min of blood flow restriction (70 % arterial occlusion). Muscle growth (ultrasound) was measured at 50, 60, and 70 % of the distance between the lateral epicondyle and acromion process. RESULTS: Both conditions completed the same exercise volume [3678 (95 % CI 2962, 4393) vs. 3638 kg (95 % CI 2854, 4423)]. There was a condition by time interaction (p = 0.031) demonstrating an attenuation of muscle growth at the 60 % site in the experimental [pre 3.1 (95 % CI 2.8, 3.5), post 3.1 (95 % CI 2.7, 3.5) cm] vs. control [pre 3.1 (95 % CI 2.6, 3.6), post 3.3 (95 % CI 2.8, 3.7) cm] condition. Muscle growth at the 50 % and 70 % sites was similar at the group level, although there were attenuations at the individual level. Exploratory analyses of pre-post mean (95 % CI) changes in muscle thickness suggested that this attenuation in the experimental condition occurred only in females [50 % site 0.0 (-0.2, 0.0) cm; 60 % site -0.1 (-0.3, 0.0) cm; 70 % site 0.0 (-0.1, 0.1) cm]. CONCLUSIONS: The application of blood flow restriction post high-load training did not augment muscle growth for either sex, and appeared to attenuate muscle growth among females.
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; Robert S Thiebaud; Christopher A Fahs; Lindy M Rossow; Takashi Abe; Michael G Bemben Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 3.078
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: Scott J Dankel; Kevin T Mattocks; Matthew B Jessee; Samuel L Buckner; J Grant Mouser; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Scott J Dankel; J Grant Mouser; Matthew B Jessee; Kevin T Mattocks; Samuel L Buckner; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Scott J Dankel; Matthew B Jessee; Kevin T Mattocks; J Grant Mouser; Brittany R Counts; Samuel L Buckner; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Sports Med Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Rhaí André Arriel; Jéssica Ferreira Rodrigues; Hiago Leandro Rodrigues de Souza; Anderson Meireles; Luís Filipe Moutinho Leitão; Antonio Crisafulli; Moacir Marocolo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 3.390