Ethan C Hill1, Terry J Housh2, Joshua L Keller2, Cory M Smith2, Richard J Schmidt2, Glen O Johnson2. 1. Department of Nutrition and Health Sciences, Human Performance Laboratory, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 110 Ruth Leverton Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0806, USA. ethan.hill@unl.edu. 2. Department of Nutrition and Health Sciences, Human Performance Laboratory, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 110 Ruth Leverton Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0806, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE:Low-intensity venous blood flow restriction (vBFR) resistance training has been shown to promote increases in muscle strength and size. Eccentric-only muscle actions are typically a more potent stimulus to increase muscle strength and size than concentric-only muscle actions performed at the same relative intensities. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to examine the time-course of changes in muscle strength, hypertrophy, and neuromuscular adaptations following 4 weeks of unilateral forearm flexion low-intensity eccentric vBFR (Ecc-vBFR) vs. low-intensity concentric vBFR (Con-vBFR) resistance training performed at the same relative intensity. METHODS:Thirty-six women were randomly assigned to either Ecc-vBFR (n = 12), Con-vBFR (n = 12) or control (no intervention, n = 12) group. Ecc-vBFR trained at 30% of eccentric peak torque and Con-vBFR trained at 30% of concentric peak torque. All training and testing procedures were performed at an isokinetic velocity of 120° s-¹. RESULTS:Muscle strength increased similarly from 0 to 2 and 4 weeks of training as a result of Ecc-vBFR (13.9 and 35.0%) and Con-vBFR (13.4 and 31.2%), but there were no changes in muscle strength for the control group. Muscle thickness increased similarly from 0 to 2 and 4 weeks of training as a result of Ecc-vBFR (11.4 and 12.8%) and Con-vBFR (9.1 and 9.9%), but there were no changes for the control group. In addition, there were no changes in any of the neuromuscular responses. CONCLUSIONS: The Ecc-vBFR and Con-vBFR low-intensity training induced comparable increases in muscle strength and size. The increases in muscle strength, however, were not associated with neuromuscular adaptations.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Low-intensity venous blood flow restriction (vBFR) resistance training has been shown to promote increases in muscle strength and size. Eccentric-only muscle actions are typically a more potent stimulus to increase muscle strength and size than concentric-only muscle actions performed at the same relative intensities. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to examine the time-course of changes in muscle strength, hypertrophy, and neuromuscular adaptations following 4 weeks of unilateral forearm flexion low-intensity eccentric vBFR (Ecc-vBFR) vs. low-intensity concentric vBFR (Con-vBFR) resistance training performed at the same relative intensity. METHODS: Thirty-six women were randomly assigned to either Ecc-vBFR (n = 12), Con-vBFR (n = 12) or control (no intervention, n = 12) group. Ecc-vBFR trained at 30% of eccentric peak torque and Con-vBFR trained at 30% of concentric peak torque. All training and testing procedures were performed at an isokinetic velocity of 120° s-¹. RESULTS: Muscle strength increased similarly from 0 to 2 and 4 weeks of training as a result of Ecc-vBFR (13.9 and 35.0%) and Con-vBFR (13.4 and 31.2%), but there were no changes in muscle strength for the control group. Muscle thickness increased similarly from 0 to 2 and 4 weeks of training as a result of Ecc-vBFR (11.4 and 12.8%) and Con-vBFR (9.1 and 9.9%), but there were no changes for the control group. In addition, there were no changes in any of the neuromuscular responses. CONCLUSIONS: The Ecc-vBFR and Con-vBFR low-intensity training induced comparable increases in muscle strength and size. The increases in muscle strength, however, were not associated with neuromuscular adaptations.
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: Jason M DeFreitas; Travis W Beck; Matt S Stock; Michael A Dillon; Paul R Kasishke Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2011-03-16 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Ethan C Hill; Terry J Housh; Joshua L Keller; Cory M Smith; John V Anders; Richard J Schmidt; Glen O Johnson; Joel T Cramer Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2021-02-27 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Ethan C Hill; Terry J Housh; Joshua L Keller; Cory M Smith; John V Anders; Richard J Schmidt; Glen O Johnson; Joel T Cramer Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Ethan C Hill; Paola M Rivera; Chris E Proppe; David H Gonzalez Rojas; Aaron M Wizenberg; Joshua L Keller Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 2.974
Authors: Bryan Haddock; Sofie K Hansen; Ulrich Lindberg; Jakob Lindberg Nielsen; Ulrik Frandsen; Per Aagaard; Henrik B W Larsson; Charlotte Suetta Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2020-08-27
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: Peter Ladlow; Russell J Coppack; Shreshth Dharm-Datta; Dean Conway; Edward Sellon; Stephen D Patterson; Alexander N Bennett Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 4.566