Ryo Kataoka1, Ecaterina Vasenina1, William B Hammert1, Adam H Ibrahim1, Scott J Dankel2, Samuel L Buckner3. 1. USF Muscle Lab, Exercise Science Program, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave. PED 214, Tampa, FL, 33620-8600, USA. 2. Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health and Exercise Science, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA. 3. USF Muscle Lab, Exercise Science Program, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave. PED 214, Tampa, FL, 33620-8600, USA. slbuckner@usf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare muscle growth adaptations between traditional high-load training and low-load training with blood flow restriction (BFR) in the calf muscles over 6 weeks. METHODS: 27 trained individuals performed calf exercise in both legs for 6 weeks. Each leg was randomly assigned to one of the two conditions: (1) Traditional (70% of 1RM) training (TRAD); and (2) Low-load (30% of 1RM) training with BFR. In addition, subjects performed standing calf raises with or without BFR. Measures were taken pre- and post-intervention. RESULTS: For the posterior muscle site, there was no condition (BFR vs. TRAD) × time (pre vs. post) interaction (p = 0.15). In addition, there was no main effect for condition (p = 0.83) or time (p = 0.20). For the lateral muscle site, there was no condition × time interaction (p = 0.47). In addition, there was no main effect for condition (p = 0.10) or time (p = 0.57). For the medial muscle site, there was no condition × time interaction (p = 0.60). In addition, there was no main effect for condition (p = 0.44) or time (p = 0.72). For RPE, there was no condition × time interaction. However, there was a main effect for condition (p < 0.05) with BFR having higher RPE. For discomfort, there was no condition × time interaction. However, there was a main effect for condition (p < 0.001) with the BFR condition displaying higher discomfort. CONCLUSION: No muscle growth was detected in the calf musculature. BFR was not more effective at eliciting muscle hypertrophy compared to traditional training. However, it was accompanied with higher exertion and discomfort.
PURPOSE: To compare muscle growth adaptations between traditional high-load training and low-load training with blood flow restriction (BFR) in the calf muscles over 6 weeks. METHODS: 27 trained individuals performed calf exercise in both legs for 6 weeks. Each leg was randomly assigned to one of the two conditions: (1) Traditional (70% of 1RM) training (TRAD); and (2) Low-load (30% of 1RM) training with BFR. In addition, subjects performed standing calf raises with or without BFR. Measures were taken pre- and post-intervention. RESULTS: For the posterior muscle site, there was no condition (BFR vs. TRAD) × time (pre vs. post) interaction (p = 0.15). In addition, there was no main effect for condition (p = 0.83) or time (p = 0.20). For the lateral muscle site, there was no condition × time interaction (p = 0.47). In addition, there was no main effect for condition (p = 0.10) or time (p = 0.57). For the medial muscle site, there was no condition × time interaction (p = 0.60). In addition, there was no main effect for condition (p = 0.44) or time (p = 0.72). For RPE, there was no condition × time interaction. However, there was a main effect for condition (p < 0.05) with BFR having higher RPE. For discomfort, there was no condition × time interaction. However, there was a main effect for condition (p < 0.001) with the BFR condition displaying higher discomfort. CONCLUSION: No muscle growth was detected in the calf musculature. BFR was not more effective at eliciting muscle hypertrophy compared to traditional training. However, it was accompanied with higher exertion and discomfort.
Authors: Scott J Dankel; Kevin T Mattocks; Matthew B Jessee; Samuel L Buckner; J Grant Mouser; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Samuel L Buckner; Scott J Dankel; Kevin T Mattocks; Matthew B Jessee; J Grant Mouser; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2017-04-22 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Christoph Centner; Benedikt Lauber; Olivier R Seynnes; Simon Jerger; Tim Sohnius; Albert Gollhofer; Daniel König Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2019-11-14
Authors: Gerson E R Campos; Thomas J Luecke; Heather K Wendeln; Kumika Toma; Fredrick C Hagerman; Thomas F Murray; Kerry E Ragg; Nicholas A Ratamess; William J Kraemer; Robert S Staron Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2002-08-15 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Ecaterina Vasenina; Ryo Kataoka; William B Hammert; Adam H Ibrahim; Scott J Dankel; Samuel L Buckner Journal: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Date: 2021-10-16 Impact factor: 2.273
Authors: Scott J Dankel; Matthew B Jessee; Kevin T Mattocks; J Grant Mouser; Brittany R Counts; Samuel L Buckner; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Sports Med Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 11.136
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
Authors: Matthew S Brook; Daniel J Wilkinson; William K Mitchell; Jonathan N Lund; Nathaniel J Szewczyk; Paul L Greenhaff; Ken Smith; Philip J Atherton Journal: FASEB J Date: 2015-07-13 Impact factor: 5.191