| Literature DB >> 29951915 |
Patrik Sundblad1,2, Roger Kölegård3, Eric Rullman4,5, Thomas Gustafsson4,5.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We hypothesized that 5 weeks of endurance training with blood flow restriction (R-training), providing relative ischemia and stimulation of the muscle chemoreflex, would decrease the exercise pressor reflex (EPR) when compared to training with the same workload in a free-flow condition (NR-training).Entities:
Keywords: Arterial pressure; Exercise; Flow restriction; Pressor reflex
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29951915 PMCID: PMC6105264 DOI: 10.1007/s00421-018-3911-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol ISSN: 1439-6319 Impact factor: 3.078
Training intensity, perceived exertion and heart rate during training
| Total work load, first training bout (W × min) | 503 ± 181 |
| Total work load, last (20th) training bout (W × min) | 848 ± 100a |
| Perceived exertion (units), R-training | 17 (15–18) |
| Perceived exertion (units), NR-training | 12 (9–13)b |
| Heart rate (bpm), R-training | 98 ± 11 |
| Heart rate (bpm), NR-training | 89 ± 7b |
Mean ± SD, Median (range)
aSignificant difference between first and last exercise bout
bSignificant difference compared to R-trained leg. Perceived exertion and heart rate were recorded at the first and last exercise session and the presented values denotes the average in the R and NR condition, respectively
Peak load test and maximum isometric torque
| R-trained leg | NR-trained leg | |
|---|---|---|
| Peak load, control (W) | 43 ± 3 | 41 ± 3 |
| Peak load, after training (W) | 56 ± 2a | 51 ± 2a |
| Isometric torque, control (Nm) | 278 ± 20 | 279 ± 17 |
| Isometric torque, after training (Nm) | 283 ± 22a | 293 ± 20a |
Mean ± SE
aSignificant difference compared to control in the same leg (p < 0.05), main effect of training, no difference between, R- and NR-trained leg
Fig. 1Change in the peak work load during the performance test after 5 weeks of training, in the R- and NR-trained leg of each subject
Fig. 2Mean arterial pressure responses to 90 s isometric unilateral knee extension at 35% of maximal voluntary contraction. Control; mean response from both legs before training, Trained-NR cond; response while contracting the leg that had received non-ischemic training, and Trained-R cond; response in the leg that had undergone ischemic training. n = 10, values are mean ± SE. †Significant difference between NR and R condition at a given time interval, *significant difference between control and R condition at a given time interval (p < 0.05)
Fig. 3Heart rate responses to 90 s isometric unilateral knee extension at 35% of maximal voluntary contraction. Control; mean response from both legs before training, Trained-NR cond; response while contracting the leg that had received non-ischemic training, and Trained-R cond; response in the leg that had undergone ischemic training. n = 10, values are mean ± SE. †Significant difference between NR and R condition at a given time interval, *significant difference between Control and R condition at a given time interval (p < 0.05)
Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) before and after EPR
| Control | NR-trained leg | R-trained leg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAP (mmHg) | |||
| Baseline | 94 ± 7 | 97 ± 7 | 96 ± 8 |
| End EPR | 133 ± 17 | 138 ± 17 | 126 ± 13 |
| HR (bpm) | |||
| Baseline | 78 ± 11 | 80 ± 12 | 80 ± 12 |
| End EPR | 106 ± 12 | 108 ± 15 | 101 ± 17 |
Mean ± SD