Zachary W Bell1, Samuel L Buckner1, Matthew B Jessee1, J Grant Mouser1, Kevin T Mattocks1, Scott J Dankel1, Takashi Abe1, Jeremy P Loenneke2. 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. 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: To determine the acute cardiovascular and perceptual responses of low-load exercise with or without blood flow restriction and compare those responses to that of moderately heavy exercise. METHODS: Twenty-two participants completed unilateral elbow flexion exercisewith a moderately heavy-load- [70% one-repetition maximum (1RM); 70/0] and with three low-load conditions (15% 1RM) in combination with 0% (15/0), 40%, (15/40) and 80% (15/80) arterial occlusion pressure. Participants exercised until failure (or until 90 repetitions per set). The cardiovascular response (arterial occlusion) was measured pre and post exercise and the perceptual responses [ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and discomfort] were determined before and after each set of exercise. RESULTS: For arterial occlusion pressure, the lower-load conditions had greater change from pre to post compared to 70/00 (e.g., 15/80: 44 vs. 70/0: 34 mmHg). RPE was highest across the sets for the 15/80 condition with the other conditions having similar RPE (e.g., set 4: median rating of 17.2 for 15/80 vs. ~ 15.5 for other conditions). Ratings of discomfort were also greatest for the 15/80 condition (15/80 > 15/40 > 15/0 > 70/0). Exercise volume within the 15/0 and 15/40 conditions were similar but were significantly greater than that observed with the 15/80 and 70/0 conditions. CONCLUSION:Low-load exercise to volitional failure results in a greater cardiovascular response to that of moderately heavy-load exercise. When high pressure is applied to low load exercise, there is a reduction in exercise volume but an elevated perceptual response that may be an important consideration when applying this stimulus in practice.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To determine the acute cardiovascular and perceptual responses of low-load exercise with or without blood flow restriction and compare those responses to that of moderately heavy exercise. METHODS: Twenty-two participants completed unilateral elbow flexion exercise with a moderately heavy-load- [70% one-repetition maximum (1RM); 70/0] and with three low-load conditions (15% 1RM) in combination with 0% (15/0), 40%, (15/40) and 80% (15/80) arterial occlusion pressure. Participants exercised until failure (or until 90 repetitions per set). The cardiovascular response (arterial occlusion) was measured pre and post exercise and the perceptual responses [ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and discomfort] were determined before and after each set of exercise. RESULTS: For arterial occlusion pressure, the lower-load conditions had greater change from pre to post compared to 70/00 (e.g., 15/80: 44 vs. 70/0: 34 mmHg). RPE was highest across the sets for the 15/80 condition with the other conditions having similar RPE (e.g., set 4: median rating of 17.2 for 15/80 vs. ~ 15.5 for other conditions). Ratings of discomfort were also greatest for the 15/80 condition (15/80 > 15/40 > 15/0 > 70/0). Exercise volume within the 15/0 and 15/40 conditions were similar but were significantly greater than that observed with the 15/80 and 70/0 conditions. CONCLUSION: Low-load exercise to volitional failure results in a greater cardiovascular response to that of moderately heavy-load exercise. When high pressure is applied to low load exercise, there is a reduction in exercise volume but an elevated perceptual response that may be an important consideration when applying this stimulus in practice.
Authors: Kevin T Mattocks; Matthew B Jessee; Brittany R Counts; Samuel L Buckner; J Grant Mouser; Scott J Dankel; Gilberto C Laurentino; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Physiol Behav Date: 2017-01-11
Authors: Nicholas A Burd; Richard J Andrews; Daniel W D West; Jonathan P Little; Andrew J R Cochran; Amy J Hector; Joshua G A Cashaback; Martin J Gibala; James R Potvin; Steven K Baker; Stuart M Phillips Journal: J Physiol Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Jeremy P Loenneke; Daeyeol Kim; J Grant Mouser; Kirsten M Allen; Robert S Thiebaud; Takashi Abe; Michael G Bemben Journal: Physiol Behav Date: 2016-02-17
Authors: L Holm; S Reitelseder; T G Pedersen; S Doessing; S G Petersen; A Flyvbjerg; J L Andersen; P Aagaard; M Kjaer Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2008-09-11
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: Bobby G Yow; David J Tennent; Thomas C Dowd; Jeremy P Loenneke; Johnny G Owens Journal: J Foot Ankle Surg Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 1.286
Authors: Robert W Morton; Sara Y Oikawa; Christopher G Wavell; Nicole Mazara; Chris McGlory; Joe Quadrilatero; Brittany L Baechler; Steven K Baker; Stuart M Phillips Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2016-05-12
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