Rogério B Corvino1,2, Harry B Rossiter3,4, Thiago Loch5, Jéssica C Martins5, Fabrizio Caputo5. 1. Human Performance Research Group, Center for Health and Exercise Science, UDESC, Florianopolis, Brazil. bulhoes_ef@yahoo.com.br. 2. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Physiology and Medicine, Rehabilitation Clinical Trials Center, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Center at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA. bulhoes_ef@yahoo.com.br. 3. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Physiology and Medicine, Rehabilitation Clinical Trials Center, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Center at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA. 4. School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 5. Human Performance Research Group, Center for Health and Exercise Science, UDESC, Florianopolis, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to identify a blood flow restriction (BFR) endurance exercise protocol that would both maximize cardiopulmonary and metabolic strain, and minimize the perception of effort. METHODS:Twelve healthy males (23 ± 2 years, 75 ± 7 kg) performed five different exercise protocols in randomized order: HI, high-intensity exercise starting at 105% of the incremental peak power (P peak); I-BFR30, intermittent BFR at 30% P peak; C-BFR30, continuous BFR at 30% P peak; CON30, control exercise without BFR at 30% P peak; I-BFR0, intermittent BFR during unloaded exercise. Cardiopulmonary, gastrocnemius oxygenation (StO2), capillary lactate ([La]), and perceived exertion (RPE) were measured. RESULTS:V̇O2, ventilation (V̇ E), heart rate (HR), [La] and RPE were greater in HI than all other protocols. However, muscle StO2 was not different between HI (set1-57.8 ± 5.8; set2-58.1 ± 7.2%) and I-BRF30 (set1-59.4 ± 4.1; set2-60.5 ± 6.6%, p < 0.05). While physiologic responses were mostly similar between I-BFR30 and C-BFR30, [La] was greater in I-BFR30 (4.2 ± 1.1 vs. 2.6 ± 1.1 mmol L-1, p = 0.014) and RPE was less (5.6 ± 2.1 and 7.4 ± 2.6; p = 0.014). I-BFR30 showed similar reduced muscle StO2 compared with HI, and increased blood lactate compared to C-BFR30 exercise. CONCLUSION: Therefore, this study demonstrate that endurance cycling with intermittent BFR promotes muscle deoxygenation and metabolic strain, which may translate into increased endurance training adaptations while minimizing power output and RPE.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We aimed to identify a blood flow restriction (BFR) endurance exercise protocol that would both maximize cardiopulmonary and metabolic strain, and minimize the perception of effort. METHODS: Twelve healthy males (23 ± 2 years, 75 ± 7 kg) performed five different exercise protocols in randomized order: HI, high-intensity exercise starting at 105% of the incremental peak power (P peak); I-BFR30, intermittent BFR at 30% P peak; C-BFR30, continuous BFR at 30% P peak; CON30, control exercise without BFR at 30% P peak; I-BFR0, intermittent BFR during unloaded exercise. Cardiopulmonary, gastrocnemius oxygenation (StO2), capillary lactate ([La]), and perceived exertion (RPE) were measured. RESULTS: V̇O2, ventilation (V̇ E), heart rate (HR), [La] and RPE were greater in HI than all other protocols. However, muscle StO2 was not different between HI (set1-57.8 ± 5.8; set2-58.1 ± 7.2%) and I-BRF30 (set1-59.4 ± 4.1; set2-60.5 ± 6.6%, p < 0.05). While physiologic responses were mostly similar between I-BFR30 and C-BFR30, [La] was greater in I-BFR30 (4.2 ± 1.1 vs. 2.6 ± 1.1 mmol L-1, p = 0.014) and RPE was less (5.6 ± 2.1 and 7.4 ± 2.6; p = 0.014). I-BFR30 showed similar reduced muscle StO2 compared with HI, and increased blood lactate compared to C-BFR30 exercise. CONCLUSION: Therefore, this study demonstrate that endurance cycling with intermittent BFR promotes muscle deoxygenation and metabolic strain, which may translate into increased endurance training adaptations while minimizing power output and RPE.
Authors: P J Fitschen; B M Kistler; J H Jeong; H R Chung; P T Wu; M J Walsh; K R Wilund Journal: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 2.273
Authors: Melina Andrade Mattar; Bruno Gualano; Luiz Augusto Perandini; Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo; Fernanda Rodrigues Lima; Ana Lúcia Sá-Pinto; Hamilton Roschel Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2014-10-25 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Matthew A Kilgas; John McDaniel; Jon Stavres; Brandon S Pollock; Tyler J Singer; Steven J Elmer Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Danny Christiansen; Kasper H Eibye; Villads Rasmussen; Hans M Voldbye; Martin Thomassen; Michael Nyberg; Thomas G P Gunnarsson; Casper Skovgaard; Mads S Lindskrog; David J Bishop; Morten Hostrup; Jens Bangsbo Journal: J Physiol Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Júlio Cesar Gomes Silva; Elísio Alves Pereira Neto; Patrick Alan Souza Pfeiffer; Gabriel Rodrigues Neto; Amanda Santos Rodrigues; Michael G Bemben; Stephen D Patterson; Gilmário Ricarte Batista; Maria S Cirilo-Sousa Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 4.566