Effects of 4 weeks of low-load unilateral resistance training, with and without blood flow restriction, on strength, thickness, V wave, and H reflex of the soleus muscle in men

Colomer‐Poveda, David; Romero‐Arenas, Salvador; Vera-Ibáñez, Antonio; Viñuela-García, M; Márquez, Gonzalo

doi:10.1007/s00421-017-3622-0

Cited by 39 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies comparing long-term HL and LL-BFR training state that the muscle activation level (assessed with superimposed electrical stimuli) significantly increased after 12 wk of heavy-load training (ϩ3%), with no changes in LL-BFR (35). Similar findings were reported by Colomer-Poveda et al (16), who demonstrated that 4 wk of LL training with and without BFR did not lead to changes in neural drive or motoneuronal excitability measured with V-wave and H-reflex stimulation. These results, however, contrast with recent findings from Cook and colleagues (20), who did not identify significant changes in muscle activation following 6 weeks of HL and LL-BFR training.…”

Section: Muscle Propertiessupporting

confidence: 83%

Low-load blood flow restriction training induces similar morphological and mechanical Achilles tendon adaptations compared with high-load resistance training

Centner

Lauber

Seynnes

et al. 2019

Journal of Applied Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) training has gained increasing interest in the scientific community by demonstrating that increases in muscle mass and strength are comparable to conventional high-load (HL) resistance training. Although adaptations on the muscular level are well documented, there is little evidence on how LL-BFR training affects human myotendinous properties. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate morphological and mechanical Achilles tendon adaptations after 14 wk of strength training. Fifty-five male volunteers (27.9 ± 5.1 yr) were randomly allocated into the following three groups: LL-BFR [20–35% of one-repetition maximum (1RM)], HL (70–85% 1RM), or a nonexercising control (CON) group. The LL-BFR and HL groups completed a resistance training program for 14 wk, and tendon morphology, mechanical as well as material properties, and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and isometric strength were assessed before and after the intervention. Both HL (+40.7%) and LL-BFR (+36.1%) training induced significant increases in tendon stiffness ( P < 0.05) as well as tendon CSA (HL: +4.6%, LL-BFR: +7.8%, P < 0.001). These changes were comparable between groups without significant changes in Young’s modulus. Furthermore, gastrocnemius medialis muscle CSA and plantar flexor strength significantly increased in both training groups ( P < 0.05), whereas the CON group did not show significant changes in any of the evaluated parameters. In conclusion, the adaptive change in Achilles tendon properties following low-load resistance training with partial vascular occlusion appears comparable to that evoked by high-load resistance training. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) training has been shown to induce beneficial adaptations at the muscular level. However, studies examining the effects on human tendon properties are rare. The findings provide first evidence that LL-BFR can increase Achilles tendon mechanical and morphological properties to a similar extent as conventional high-load resistance training. This is of particular importance for individuals who may not tolerate heavy training loads but still aim for improvements in myotendinous function.

show abstract

Section: Muscle Propertiessupporting

confidence: 83%

Low-load blood flow restriction training induces similar morphological and mechanical Achilles tendon adaptations compared with high-load resistance training

Centner

Lauber

Seynnes

et al. 2019

Journal of Applied Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies on neural adaptions in response to BFR training have revealed contrasting results. A lack of change in central activation, motor neuron excitability, and/or central descending drive and/or surface electromyography (sEMG) amplitude during MVC, respectively, has been noted in response to 5‐12 weeks of LL‐BFR training . In contrast, an increase in sEMG amplitude during isotonic MVC has been observed after 5‐weeks LL‐BFR training .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A lack of change in central activation, motor neuron excitability, and/or central descending drive and/or surface electromyography (sEMG) amplitude during MVC, respectively, has been noted in response to 5-12 weeks of LL-BFR training. [58][59][60] In contrast, an increase in sEMG amplitude during isotonic MVC has been observed after 5-weeks LL-BFR training. 61 Overall, these data suggest that BFR training may not uniformly stimulate improvements in neuromuscular function.…”

mentioning

confidence: 82%

Effect of blood‐flow restricted vs heavy‐load strength training on muscle strength: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Grønfeldt

Nielsen

Mieritz

et al. 2020

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Heavy‐load strength training (HLT) is generally considered the Gold Standard exercise modality for inducing gains in skeletal muscle strength. However, use of heavy external exercise loads may be contraindicative in frail individuals. Low‐load resistance exercise combined with partial blood‐flow restriction (LL‐BFR exercise) may offer an effective alternative for increasing mechanical muscle strength and size. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of LL‐BFR training to HLT on maximal muscle strength gains. Prospero registration‐id (CRD42014013382). Materials and methods A systematic search in six healthcare science databases and reference lists was conducted. Data selected for primary analysis consisted of post‐intervention changes in maximal muscle strength. A random‐effects meta‐analysis with standardized mean differences (SMD) was used. Results Of 1413 papers identified through systematic search routines, sixteen papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria, totalling 153 participants completing HLT and 157 completing LL‐BFR training. The magnitude of training‐induced gains in maximal muscle strength did not differ between LL‐BFR training and HLT (SMD of −0.17 (95% CI: −0.40; 0.05)). Low between‐study heterogeneity was noted (I2 = 0.0%, Chi2 P = 9.65). Conclusion Low‐load blood‐flow‐restricted training appears equally effective of producing gains in maximal voluntary muscle strength compared to HLT in 20‐ to 80‐year‐old healthy and habitually active adults.

show abstract

“…In support of this notion, several studies have reported that low‐load BFRRE induces strength gains and muscle hypertrophy without any significant changes in measures of voluntary activation and neural drive . In addition, high load strength training appears to induce greater neural adaptations than low‐load BFRRE .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Muscle fibre activation and fatigue with low‐load blood flow restricted resistance exercise—An integrative physiology review

Wernbom

Aagaard

2019

Acta Physiologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Blood flow-restricted resistance exercise (BFRRE) has been shown to induce increases in muscle size and strength, and continues to generate interest from both clinical and basic research points of view. The low loads employed, typically 20%-50% of the one repetition maximum, make BFRRE an attractive training modality for individuals who may not tolerate high musculoskeletal forces (eg, selected clinical patient groups such as frail old adults and patients recovering from sports injury) and/or for highly trained athletes who have reached a plateau in muscle mass and strength. It has been proposed that achieving a high degree of muscle fibre recruitment is important for inducing muscle hypertrophy with BFRRE, and the available evidence suggest that fatiguing low-load exercise during ischemic conditions can recruit both slow (type I) and fast (type II) muscle fibres. Nevertheless, closer scrutiny reveals that type II fibre activation in BFRRE has to date largely been inferred using indirect methods such as electromyography and magnetic resonance spectroscopy, while only rarely addressed using more direct methods such as measurements of glycogen stores and phosphocreatine levels in muscle fibres. Hence, considerable uncertainity exists about the specific pattern of muscle fibre activation during BFRRE. Therefore, the purpose of this narrative review was (1) to summarize the evidence on muscle fibre recruitment during BFRRE as revealed by various methods employed for determining muscle fibre usage during exercise, and (2) to discuss reported findings in light of the specific advantages and limitations associated with these methods. K E Y W O R D Sfatigue, ischemia, motor units, muscle hypertrophy, occlusion 4 of 48 | WERNBOM aNd aaGaaRd 3.5.), which in turn can raise the recruitment threshold of the highest threshold units (discussed in Section 3.4.). As a result, the approximate upper limit for motor unit recruitment during more normal and physiologically relevant contraction durations (eg, 1-3 seconds) remains to be fully defined.

show abstract

Effects of 4 weeks of low-load unilateral resistance training, with and without blood flow restriction, on strength, thickness, V wave, and H reflex of the soleus muscle in men

Abstract: Collectively, the present data suggest that in spite of the changes occurring in soleus strength and thickness, 4 weeks of low-load resistance training, with or without BFR, does not cause any change in neural drive or motoneuronal excitability.

Cited by 39 publications

References 58 publications

Low-load blood flow restriction training induces similar morphological and mechanical Achilles tendon adaptations compared with high-load resistance training

Low-load blood flow restriction training induces similar morphological and mechanical Achilles tendon adaptations compared with high-load resistance training

Effect of blood‐flow restricted vs heavy‐load strength training on muscle strength: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Muscle fibre activation and fatigue with low‐load blood flow restricted resistance exercise—An integrative physiology review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About