Ethan C Hill1, Terry J Housh2, Joshua L Keller2, Cory M Smith3, John V Anders2, Richard J Schmidt2, Glen O Johnson2, Joel T Cramer2. 1. Division of Kinesiology, School of Kinesiology and Physical Therapy, University of Central Florida, 12494 University Boulevard, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA. ethan.hill@ucf.edu. 2. Department of Nutrition and Health Sciences, Human Performance Laboratory, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68505, USA. 3. Department of Kinesiology, College of Health Sciences, University of Texas At El Paso, El Paso, TX, 79968, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE:Low-load venous blood flow restriction resistance training (RT + BFR) has been demonstrated to increase muscle strength to a greater degree than low-load non-BFR resistance training (RT) during isotonic training, but no previous investigations have examined RT + BFR versus RT during isokinetic training. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of 4 weeks of isokinetic low-load RT + BFR versus low-load RT on indices of muscle strength, muscle size, and neural adaptations. METHODS:Thirty women (mean ± SD; 22 ± 2 years) participated in this investigation and were randomly assigned to 4 weeks of either RT + BFR (n = 10), RT (n = 10), or control (n = 10) group. Resistance training consisted of 75 reciprocal forearm flexion-extension isokinetic muscle actions of the forearm flexors performed at a velocity of 120°s-1. RESULTS:Concentric peak torque increased to a greater extent for RT + BFR after 4 weeks (36.9%) compared to RT (25.8%), but there were similar increases in isometric torque (23.3-42.1%). For both RT + BFR and RT, there were similar increases in muscle cross-sectional area and muscle thickness of the biceps brachii after 2 weeks (11.3-14.3% and 12.4-12.9%, respectively) and 4 weeks (18.7-21.9% and 19.0-20.0%, respectively). There were similar increases in mechanomyographic amplitude, mechanomyographic mean power frequency, and electromyographic mean power frequency, but no changes in electromyographic amplitude for all conditions (including control). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicated that low-load RT + BFR elicited greater increases in concentric strength than low-load RT, but elicited comparable increases in isometric strength and muscle size. There were also no differences in any of the EMG and MMG responses among conditions.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Low-load venous blood flow restriction resistance training (RT + BFR) has been demonstrated to increase muscle strength to a greater degree than low-load non-BFR resistance training (RT) during isotonic training, but no previous investigations have examined RT + BFR versus RT during isokinetic training. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of 4 weeks of isokinetic low-load RT + BFR versus low-load RT on indices of muscle strength, muscle size, and neural adaptations. METHODS: Thirty women (mean ± SD; 22 ± 2 years) participated in this investigation and were randomly assigned to 4 weeks of either RT + BFR (n = 10), RT (n = 10), or control (n = 10) group. Resistance training consisted of 75 reciprocal forearm flexion-extension isokinetic muscle actions of the forearm flexors performed at a velocity of 120°s-1. RESULTS: Concentric peak torque increased to a greater extent for RT + BFR after 4 weeks (36.9%) compared to RT (25.8%), but there were similar increases in isometric torque (23.3-42.1%). For both RT + BFR and RT, there were similar increases in muscle cross-sectional area and muscle thickness of the biceps brachii after 2 weeks (11.3-14.3% and 12.4-12.9%, respectively) and 4 weeks (18.7-21.9% and 19.0-20.0%, respectively). There were similar increases in mechanomyographic amplitude, mechanomyographic mean power frequency, and electromyographic mean power frequency, but no changes in electromyographic amplitude for all conditions (including control). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicated that low-load RT + BFR elicited greater increases in concentric strength than low-load RT, but elicited comparable increases in isometric strength and muscle size. There were also no differences in any of the EMG and MMG responses among conditions.
Authors: Nathaniel D M Jenkins; Terry J Housh; Samuel L Buckner; Haley C Bergstrom; Kristen C Cochrane; Ethan C Hill; Cory M Smith; Richard J Schmidt; Glen O Johnson; Joel T Cramer Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Jeremy P Loenneke; Daeyeol Kim; Christopher A Fahs; Robert S Thiebaud; Takashi Abe; Rebecca D Larson; Debra A Bemben; Michael G Bemben Journal: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 2.273
Authors: C F M Z Clemente; J Xavier-Neto; A P Dalla Costa; S R Consonni; J E Antunes; S A Rocco; M B Pereira; C C Judice; B Strauss; P P Joazeiro; J R Matos-Souza; K G Franchini Journal: J Mol Cell Cardiol Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 5.000
Authors: Nathaniel D M Jenkins; Amelia A Miramonti; Ethan C Hill; Cory M Smith; Kristen C Cochrane-Snyman; Terry J Housh; Joel T Cramer Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-05-29 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Michael D Roberts; Cody T Haun; Christopher B Mobley; Petey W Mumford; Matthew A Romero; Paul A Roberson; Christopher G Vann; John J McCarthy Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-07-04 Impact factor: 4.566
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; 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: Mikhail Santos Cerqueira; Daniel Germano Maciel; Jean Artur Mendonça Barboza; Christoph Centner; Maria Lira; Rafael Pereira; Wouber Hérickson De Brito Vieira Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 3.824