Literature DB >> 29570573

Sexual Dimorphism in the Estimation of Upper-Limb Blood Flow Restriction in the Seated Position.

Afonso Borges1, Carolina Teodósio1, Pedro Matos1, Pedro Mil-Homens1,2, Pedro Pezarat-Correia1,2, Christopher Fahs3, Goncalo V Mendonca1,2.   

Abstract

Borges, A, Teodósio, C, Matos, P, Mil-Homens, P, Pezarat-Correia, P, Fahs, C, and Mendonca, GV. Sexual dimorphism in the estimation of upper-limb blood flow restriction in the seated position. J Strength Cond Res 32(7): 2096-2102, 2018-Arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) is typically used to normalize blood flow restriction (BFR) during low-intensity BFR exercise. Despite strong evidence for sexual dimorphism in muscle blood flow, sex-related differences in AOP estimation remain a controversial topic. We aimed at determining whether the relationship of upper-limb AOP with arm circumference and systolic blood pressure (BP) differs between men and women resting in the seated position. Sixty-two healthy young participants (31 men: 21.7 ± 2.3; 31 women: 22.0 ± 2.0 years) were included in this study. Arm circumference, resting BP, and AOP were taken in the seated position. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine whether the relationship of AOP with arm circumference and resting BP differed between sexes. Prediction accuracy was assessed with the mean absolute percent error and Bland-Altman plots. Men had higher systolic BP and larger arm circumference than women (p < 0.05). Nevertheless, AOP was similar between sexes. Arm circumference, systolic BP, and sex were all significant predictors of AOP (p < 0.05), explaining 42% of its variance. The absolute percent error was similar in both sexes (men: -0.55 ± 7.12; women: -0.39 ± 6.31%, p > 0.05). Bland-Altman plots showed that the mean difference between actual and estimated AOP was nearly zero in both groups, with no systematic overestimation or underestimation. In conclusion, arm circumference, systolic BP, and sex are all significant predictors of upper-limb-seated AOP. Their measurement allows for the indirect estimation of BFR pressure within the context of exercise training.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29570573     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002582

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Strength Cond Res        ISSN: 1064-8011            Impact factor:   3.775


  2 in total

1.  Contralateral training effects of low-intensity blood-flow restricted and high-intensity unilateral resistance training.

Authors:  Goncalo V Mendonca; Carolina Vila-Chã; Carolina Teodósio; André D Goncalves; Sandro R Freitas; Pedro Mil-Homens; Pedro Pezarat-Correia
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  Nerve conduction during acute blood-flow restriction with and without low-intensity exercise Nerve conduction and blood-flow restriction.

Authors:  Goncalo V Mendonca; Miguel Mouro; Carolina Vila-Chã; Pedro Pezarat-Correia
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-04-30       Impact factor: 4.379

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.