Muscle strength is often measured through the performance of a one-repetition maximum (1RM). However, we that feel a true measurement of 'strength' remains elusive. For example, low-load alternatives to traditional resistance training result in muscle hypertrophic changes similar to those resulting from traditional high-load resistance training, with less robust changes observed with maximal strength measured by the 1RM. However, when strength is measured using a test to which both groups are 'naive', differences in strength become less apparent. We suggest that the 1RM is a specific skill, which will improve most when training incorporates its practice or when a lift is completed at a near-maximal load. Thus, if we only recognize increases in the 1RM as indicative of strength, we will overlook many effective and diverse alternatives to traditional high-load resistance training. We wish to suggest that multiple measurements of strength assessment be utilized in order to capture a more complete picture of the adaptation to resistance training.

An inability to lift loads great enough to disrupt muscular blood flow may impair the ability to fatigue muscles, compromising the hypertrophic response. It is unknown what level of blood flow restriction (BFR) pressure, if any, is necessary to reach failure at very low-loads [i.e., 15% one-repetition maximum (1RM)]. The purpose of this study was to investigate muscular adaptations following resistance training with a very low-load alone (15/0), with moderate BFR (15/40), or with high BFR (15/80), and compare them to traditional high-load (70/0) resistance training. Using a within/between subject design, healthy young participants (n = 40) performed four sets of unilateral knee extension to failure (up to 90 repetitions/set), twice per week for 8 weeks. Data presented as mean change (95% CI). There was a condition by time interaction for 1RM (p < 0.001), which increased for 70/0 [3.15 (2.04,4.25) kg] only. A condition by time interaction (p = 0.028) revealed greater changes in endurance for 15/80 [6 (4,8) repetitions] compared to 15/0 [4 (2,6) repetitions] and 70/0 [4 (2,5) repetitions]. There was a main effect of time for isometric MVC [change = 10.51 (3.87,17.16) Nm, p = 0.002] and isokinetic MVC at 180°/s [change = 8.61 (5.54,11.68) Nm, p < 0.001], however there was no change in isokinetic MVC at 60°/s [2.45 (−1.84,6.74) Nm, p = 0.261]. Anterior and lateral muscle thickness was assessed at 30, 40, 50, and 60% of the upper leg. There was no condition by time interaction for muscle thickness sites (all p ≥ 0.313). There was a main effect of time for all sites, with increases over time (all p < 0.001). With the exception of the 30% lateral site (p = 0.059) there was also a main effect of condition (all p < 0.001). Generally, 70/0 was greater. Average weekly volume increased for all conditions across the 8 weeks, and was greatest for 70/0 followed by 15/0, 15/40, then 15/80. With the exception of 1RM, changes in strength and muscle size were similar regardless of load or restriction. The workload required to elicit these changes lowered with increased BFR pressure. These findings may be pertinent to rehabilitative settings, future research, and program design.

The principle of progressive overload must be adhered to for individuals to continually increase muscle size with resistance training. While the majority of trained individuals adhere to this principle by increasing the number of sets performed per exercise session, this does not appear to be an effective method for increasing muscle size once a given threshold is surpassed. Opposite the numerous studies examining differences in training loads and sets of exercise performed, a few studies have assessed the importance of training frequency with respect to muscle growth, none of which have tested very high frequencies of training (e.g., 7 days a week). The lack of studies examining such frequencies may be related to the American College of Sports Medicine recommendation that trained individuals use split routines allowing at least 48 h of rest between exercises that stress the same muscle groups. Given the attenuated muscle protein synthetic response to resistance exercise present in trained individuals, it can be hypothesized that increasing the training frequency would allow for more frequent elevations in muscle protein synthesis and more time spent in a positive net protein balance. We hypothesize that increasing the training frequency, as opposed to the training load or sets performed, may be a more appropriate strategy for trained individuals to progress a resistance exercise program aimed at increasing muscle size.

These findings suggest that neither exercise volume nor the change in muscle size from training contributed to greater strength gains compared with just practicing the test.

No abstract

Under relative levels of restriction, pressures from 40 to 90% of AOP appear to decrease blood flow to a similar degree in these three cuffs. Relative pressures appear to elicit a similar blood flow stimulus when accounting for cuff width and participant characteristics.

Blood flow restriction by itself or in combination with exercise has been shown to produce beneficial adaptations to skeletal muscle. These adaptations have been observed across a range of populations, and this technique has become an attractive possibility for use in rehabilitation. Although there are concerns that applying blood flow restriction during exercise makes exercise inherently more dangerous, these concerns appear largely unfounded. Nevertheless, we have advocated that practitioners could minimize many of the risks associated with blood flow-restricted exercise by accounting for methodological factors, such as cuff width, cuff type, and the individual to which blood flow restriction is being applied. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of these methodological factors and provide evidence-based recommendations for how to apply blood flow restriction. We also provide some discussion on how blood flow restriction may serve as an effective treatment in a clinical setting.

No abstract