Goncalo V Mendonca1,2, Afonso Borges3, Carolina Teodósio3, Pedro Matos3, Joana Correia3, Carolina Vila-Chã4,5, Pedro Mil-Homens3,6, Pedro Pezarat-Correia3,6. 1. Neuromuscular Research Lab, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Estrada da Costa, Cruz Quebrada Dafundo, 1499-002, Lisbon, Portugal. gvmendonca@gmail.com. 2. CIPER, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Estrada da Costa, Cruz Quebrada Dafundo, 1499-002, Lisbon, Portugal. gvmendonca@gmail.com. 3. Neuromuscular Research Lab, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Estrada da Costa, Cruz Quebrada Dafundo, 1499-002, Lisbon, Portugal. 4. Polytechnic Institute of Guarda, Av. Dr. Francisco Sá Carneiro, n. 50, 6300-559, Guarda, Portugal. 5. Research Center in Sports Sciences, Health and Human Development (CIDESD), Vila Real, Portugal. 6. CIPER, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Estrada da Costa, Cruz Quebrada Dafundo, 1499-002, Lisbon, Portugal.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine whether men and women display a different magnitude of muscle fatigue in response to high-load (HL) and low-load blood flow-restricted (LLBFR) elbow-flexion exercise. We also explored to which extent both exercise protocols induce similar levels of muscle fatigue (i.e., torque decrement). METHODS: Sixty-two young participants (31 men and 31 women) performed dynamic elbow flexions at 20 and 75% of one-repetition maximum for LLBFR and HL exercise, respectively. Maximum voluntary isometric contractions were performed before and after exercise to quantify muscle fatigue. RESULTS: Men and women exhibited similar magnitude of relative torque decrement after both exercise protocols (p > 0.05). HL was more fatiguing (∆ torque output: 11.9 and 23 N.m in women and men, respectively) than LLBFR resistance exercise (∆ torque output: 8.3 and 15.4 N.m in women and men, respectively) in both sexes, but this was largely attenuated after controlling for the differences in volume load between protocols (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These data show that torque decrement in response to LLBFR and HL dynamic elbow-flexion exercise does not follow a sexually dimorphic pattern. Our data also indicate that, if performed in a multiple-set fashion and prescribed for a given volume load, elbow-flexion LLBFR exercise induces similar levels of fatigue as HL acute training. Importantly, this occurs similarly in both sexes.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine whether men and women display a different magnitude of muscle fatigue in response to high-load (HL) and low-load blood flow-restricted (LLBFR) elbow-flexion exercise. We also explored to which extent both exercise protocols induce similar levels of muscle fatigue (i.e., torque decrement). METHODS: Sixty-two young participants (31 men and 31 women) performed dynamic elbow flexions at 20 and 75% of one-repetition maximum for LLBFR and HL exercise, respectively. Maximum voluntary isometric contractions were performed before and after exercise to quantify muscle fatigue. RESULTS:Men and women exhibited similar magnitude of relative torque decrement after both exercise protocols (p > 0.05). HL was more fatiguing (∆ torque output: 11.9 and 23 N.m in women and men, respectively) than LLBFR resistance exercise (∆ torque output: 8.3 and 15.4 N.m in women and men, respectively) in both sexes, but this was largely attenuated after controlling for the differences in volume load between protocols (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These data show that torque decrement in response to LLBFR and HL dynamic elbow-flexion exercise does not follow a sexually dimorphic pattern. Our data also indicate that, if performed in a multiple-set fashion and prescribed for a given volume load, elbow-flexion LLBFR exercise induces similar levels of fatigue as HL acute training. Importantly, this occurs similarly in both sexes.
Authors: Jonathan D Umbel; Richard L Hoffman; Douglas J Dearth; Gary S Chleboun; Todd M Manini; Brian C Clark Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2009-08-29 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: Daniel R Moore; Kirsten A Burgomaster; Lee M Schofield; Martin J Gibala; Digby G Sale; Stuart M Phillips Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: G Laurentino; C Ugrinowitsch; A Y Aihara; A R Fernandes; A C Parcell; M Ricard; V Tricoli Journal: Int J Sports Med Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 3.118