Tyler J Singer1, Jon Stavres2, Steven J Elmer3, Matthew A Kilgas4, Brandon S Pollock5, Sarah G Kearney6, John McDaniel6. 1. Department of Exercise Physiology, Kent State University, Kent, OH, 44242, USA. tsinger4@kent.edu. 2. Heart and Vascular Institute, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA. 3. Department of Kinesiology and Integrated Physiology, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA. 4. School of Health and Human Performance, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, MI, USA. 5. Exercise Science Program, Walsh University, North Canton, OH, USA. 6. Department of Exercise Physiology, Kent State University, Kent, OH, 44242, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise has emerged as a method of increasing muscle size and strength with low intensity resistance training. While the cuff pressures used during BFR are typically a percentage of resting arterial occlusion pressure (AOP), the impact these cuff pressures have on blood flow during lower body exercise is unknown. PURPOSE: To determine how various cuff pressures impact blood flow and tissue perfusion during exercise. METHODS: Eleven healthy male participants completed four sets of knee extension (30 reps per set at 30% max torque) with 0%, 60%, 80%, and 100% of arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) was applied to the proximal portion of the thigh. Femoral artery blood flow, tissue oxygenation, and central hemodynamics were continuously recorded before, during, and after exercise. Electromyography (EMG) amplitude was recorded from the vastus lateralis during exercise. RESULTS: Blood flow increased during exercise compared to rest across all cuff pressures (p < 0.001), however compared to 0%, the absolute blood flow was reduced by 34 ± 17%, 45 ± 22%, and 72 ± 19% for 60, 80, and 100% AOP, respectively. Furthermore, each cuff pressure resulted in similar relative changes in blood flow before, during, and after exercise. During exercise, tissue saturation index (TSI) decreased as cuff pressure increased (p ≤ 0.005) with the exception of 80 to 100% AOP. Deoxyhemoglobin increased (p ≤ 0.001) with cuff pressure. CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that while BFR knee extension elicits an absolute hyperemic response at cuff pressures up to 100% resting AOP, the relative reductions in blood flow are consistent across rest, exercise and recovery.
INTRODUCTION: Blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise has emerged as a method of increasing muscle size and strength with low intensity resistance training. While the cuff pressures used during BFR are typically a percentage of resting arterial occlusion pressure (AOP), the impact these cuff pressures have on blood flow during lower body exercise is unknown. PURPOSE: To determine how various cuff pressures impact blood flow and tissue perfusion during exercise. METHODS: Eleven healthy male participants completed four sets of knee extension (30 reps per set at 30% max torque) with 0%, 60%, 80%, and 100% of arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) was applied to the proximal portion of the thigh. Femoral artery blood flow, tissue oxygenation, and central hemodynamics were continuously recorded before, during, and after exercise. Electromyography (EMG) amplitude was recorded from the vastus lateralis during exercise. RESULTS: Blood flow increased during exercise compared to rest across all cuff pressures (p < 0.001), however compared to 0%, the absolute blood flow was reduced by 34 ± 17%, 45 ± 22%, and 72 ± 19% for 60, 80, and 100% AOP, respectively. Furthermore, each cuff pressure resulted in similar relative changes in blood flow before, during, and after exercise. During exercise, tissue saturation index (TSI) decreased as cuff pressure increased (p ≤ 0.005) with the exception of 80 to 100% AOP. Deoxyhemoglobin increased (p ≤ 0.001) with cuff pressure. CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that while BFR knee extension elicits an absolute hyperemic response at cuff pressures up to 100% resting AOP, the relative reductions in blood flow are consistent across rest, exercise and recovery.
Authors: Manoel E Lixandrão; Carlos Ugrinowitsch; Gilberto Laurentino; Cleiton A Libardi; André Y Aihara; Fabiano N Cardoso; Valmor Tricoli; Hamilton Roschel Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: J Grant Mouser; Gilberto C Laurentino; Scott J Dankel; Samuel L Buckner; Matthew B Jessee; Brittany R Counts; Kevin T Mattocks; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: Brittany R Counts; Scott J Dankel; Brian E Barnett; Daeyeol Kim; J Grant Mouser; Kirsten M Allen; Robert S Thiebaud; Takashi Abe; Michael G Bemben; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: J Grant Mouser; Carl J Ade; Christopher D Black; Debra A Bemben; Michael G Bemben Journal: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 2.273
Authors: J Grant Mouser; Scott J Dankel; Matthew B Jessee; Kevin T Mattocks; Samuel L Buckner; Brittany R Counts; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2017-05-13 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: J Grant Mouser; Kevin T Mattocks; Scott J Dankel; Samuel L Buckner; Matthew B Jessee; Zachary W Bell; Takashi Abe; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 2.665