Ethan C Hill1,2, Terry J Housh3, Joshua L Keller4, Cory M Smith5, John V Anders3, Richard J Schmidt3, Glen O Johnson3, Joel T Cramer5. 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. Florida Space Institute, Partnership I, University of Central Florida, Research Parkway, Orlando, FL, 32826, USA. ethan.hill@ucf.edu. 3. Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Nutrition and Health Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68505, USA. 4. Department of Health, Kinesiology and Sport, College of Education and Professional Studies, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, 36688, USA. 5. Department of Kinesiology, College of Health Sciences, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, 79968, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to examine the individual and composite patterns of responses and time-course of changes in muscle size, strength, and edema throughout a 4 week low-load blood flow restriction (LLBFR) resistance training intervention. METHODS:Twenty recreationally active women (mean ± SD; 23 ± 3 years) participated in this investigation and were randomly assigned to 4 weeks (3/week) of LLBFR (n = 10) or control (n = 10) group. Resistance training consisted of 75 reciprocal isokinetic forearm flexion-extension muscle actions performed at 30% of peak torque. Strength and ultrasound-based assessments were determined at each training session. RESULTS: There were quadratic increases for composite muscle thickness (R2 = 0.998), concentric peak torque (R2 = 0.962), and maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) torque (R2 = 0.980) data for the LLBFR group. For muscle thickness, seven of ten subjects exceeded the minimal difference (MD) of 0.16 cm during the very early phase (laboratory visits 1-7) of the intervention compared to three of ten subjects that exceeded MD for either concentric peak torque (3.7 Nm) or MVIC (2.2 Nm) during this same time period. There was a linear increase for composite echo intensity (r2 = 0.563) as a result of LLBFR resistance training, but eight of ten subjects never exceeded the MD of 14.2 Au. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggested that the increases in muscle thickness for the LLBFR group were not associated with edema and changes in echo intensity should be examined on a subject-by-subject basis. Furthermore, LLBFR forearm flexion-extension resistance training elicited real increases in muscle size during the very early phase of training that occurred prior to real increases in muscle strength.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to examine the individual and composite patterns of responses and time-course of changes in muscle size, strength, and edema throughout a 4 week low-load blood flow restriction (LLBFR) resistance training intervention. METHODS: Twenty recreationally active women (mean ± SD; 23 ± 3 years) participated in this investigation and were randomly assigned to 4 weeks (3/week) of LLBFR (n = 10) or control (n = 10) group. Resistance training consisted of 75 reciprocal isokinetic forearm flexion-extension muscle actions performed at 30% of peak torque. Strength and ultrasound-based assessments were determined at each training session. RESULTS: There were quadratic increases for composite muscle thickness (R2 = 0.998), concentric peak torque (R2 = 0.962), and maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) torque (R2 = 0.980) data for the LLBFR group. For muscle thickness, seven of ten subjects exceeded the minimal difference (MD) of 0.16 cm during the very early phase (laboratory visits 1-7) of the intervention compared to three of ten subjects that exceeded MD for either concentric peak torque (3.7 Nm) or MVIC (2.2 Nm) during this same time period. There was a linear increase for composite echo intensity (r2 = 0.563) as a result of LLBFR resistance training, but eight of ten subjects never exceeded the MD of 14.2 Au. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggested that the increases in muscle thickness for the LLBFR group were not associated with edema and changes in echo intensity should be examined on a subject-by-subject basis. Furthermore, LLBFR forearm flexion-extension resistance training elicited real increases in muscle size during the very early phase of training that occurred prior to real increases in muscle strength.
Authors: Scott J Dankel; Takashi Abe; Robert W Spitz; Ricardo Viana; Zachary W Bell; Vickie Wong; Raksha N Chatakondi; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2019-03-02 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Victor M Curty; Alexandre B Melo; Leonardo C Caldas; Lucas Guimarães-Ferreira; Nuno F de Sousa; Paula F Vassallo; Elisardo C Vasquez; Valério G Barauna Journal: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 2.273
Authors: Samuel L Buckner; Scott J Dankel; Kevin T Mattocks; Matthew B Jessee; J Grant Mouser; Brittany R Counts; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Samuel L Buckner; Scott J Dankel; Kevin T Mattocks; Matthew B Jessee; J Grant Mouser; Brittany R Counts; Gilberto C Laurentino; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2016-12-24 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Jason M DeFreitas; Travis W Beck; Matt S Stock; Michael A Dillon; Paul R Kasishke Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2011-03-16 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Felipe Damas; Stuart M Phillips; Manoel E Lixandrão; Felipe C Vechin; Cleiton A Libardi; Hamilton Roschel; Valmor Tricoli; Carlos Ugrinowitsch Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Thomas Bjørnsen; Mathias Wernbom; Alexander Kirketeig; Gøran Paulsen; Lars Samnøy; Lasse Bækken; David Cameron-Smith; Sveinung Berntsen; Truls Raastad Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 5.411