Eduardo D S Freitas1, Ryan M Miller2, Aaron D Heishman2, Rodrigo R Aniceto3, Rebecca Larson2, Hugo M Pereira2, Debra Bemben2, Michael G Bemben2. 1. Department of Health and Exercise Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, United States. Electronic address: eduardofreitas@ou.edu. 2. Department of Health and Exercise Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, United States. 3. Study and Research Group in Biomechanics and Psychophysiology of Exercise, Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Rio Grande do Norte, Currais Novos, RN, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (LLBFR-RE) has been shown capable of improving neuromuscular parameters in several clinical populations, however, its tolerability and effects on individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perceptual responses of individuals with MS to LLBFR-RE versus traditional high-load resistance exercise (HL-RE). METHODS: Four men and eleven women diagnosed with relapsing-remitting MS randomly completed the following experimental trials: 1) LLBFR-RE four sets of 30-15-15-15 repetitions, at 20% of one-repetition maximum (1-RM) of leg-press (LP) and knee-extension (KE), with 50% of BFR, and a 1-min rest interval between sets; 2) HL-RE- four sets of 8-10 repetitions, at 70% 1-RM of LP and KE, with the same rest intervals. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured after each set, pain was measured before and after sets, and delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) was measured at 5, 30, 60 min, and 24-h post-exercise. RESULTS: HL-RE elicited significantly (p<0.05) greater RPE compared to LLBFR-RE during all sets. Additionally, there were no significant (p>0.05) differences between LLBFR-RE and HL-RE for pain immediately after all sets, although pain measured before sets were significantly (p<0.05) greater for LLBFR-RE. Finally, both protocols resulted in similar DOMS, however, it was significantly (p<0.05) elevated 24-h post-exercise compared to 1-h after for HL-RE but not for LLBFR-RE. CONCLUSION: Altogether, these data demonstrate that LLBFR-RE is well tolerated by individuals with MS, requires less muscular exertion than HL-RE, and does not cause exaggerated pain during exercise or elevated DOMS up to 24 h post-exercise.
BACKGROUND: Low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (LLBFR-RE) has been shown capable of improving neuromuscular parameters in several clinical populations, however, its tolerability and effects on individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perceptual responses of individuals with MS to LLBFR-RE versus traditional high-load resistance exercise (HL-RE). METHODS: Four men and eleven women diagnosed with relapsing-remitting MS randomly completed the following experimental trials: 1) LLBFR-RE four sets of 30-15-15-15 repetitions, at 20% of one-repetition maximum (1-RM) of leg-press (LP) and knee-extension (KE), with 50% of BFR, and a 1-min rest interval between sets; 2) HL-RE- four sets of 8-10 repetitions, at 70% 1-RM of LP and KE, with the same rest intervals. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured after each set, pain was measured before and after sets, and delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) was measured at 5, 30, 60 min, and 24-h post-exercise. RESULTS:HL-RE elicited significantly (p<0.05) greater RPE compared to LLBFR-RE during all sets. Additionally, there were no significant (p>0.05) differences between LLBFR-RE and HL-RE for pain immediately after all sets, although pain measured before sets were significantly (p<0.05) greater for LLBFR-RE. Finally, both protocols resulted in similar DOMS, however, it was significantly (p<0.05) elevated 24-h post-exercise compared to 1-h after for HL-RE but not for LLBFR-RE. CONCLUSION: Altogether, these data demonstrate that LLBFR-RE is well tolerated by individuals with MS, requires less muscular exertion than HL-RE, and does not cause exaggerated pain during exercise or elevated DOMS up to 24 h post-exercise.
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