Effects of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction on the perceived exertion, muscular resistance and endurance in healthy young adults

Muller, Carlos Henrique de Lemos; Ramis, Thiago Rozales; Ribeiro, Jerri Luiz

doi:10.1007/s11332-019-00536-2

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The studies included a total 573 subjects (females, n = 141; males, n = 432). Sixteen studies (53%) examined women who participated in resistance training programs, [3][4][5][6]12,23,24,33,34,42,[48][49][50]54,70,71 12 studies (40%) analyzed untrained women, 13,18,29,41,43,45,53,58,63,66,73,74 and only 2 studies (7%) did not report information about prior participation in resistance training programs. 31,32 Two studies analyzed elderly women, 53,58 whereas the other studies analyzed young women.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute Effect of Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction on Perceptual Responses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Queiros

Rolnick

Santos

et al. 2022

Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Several studies have compared perceptual responses between resistance exercise with blood flow restriction and traditional resistance exercise (non-BFR). However, the results were contradictory. Objectives: To analyze the effect of RE+BFR versus non-BFR resistance exercise [low-load resistance exercise (LL-RE) or high-load resistance exercise (HL-RE)] on perceptual responses. Data Sources: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed®, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science were searched through August 28, 2021, and again on August 25, 2022. Study Selection: Studies comparing the effect of RE+BFR versus non-BFR resistance exercise on rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and muscle pain/discomfort were considered. Meta-analyses were conducted using the random effects model. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Level of Evidence: Level 2. Data Extraction: All data were reviewed and extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Results: Thirty studies were included in this review. In a fixed repetition scheme, the RPE [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.04; P < 0.01] and discomfort (SMD = 1.10; P < 0.01) were higher in RE+BFR than in non-BFR LL-RE, but similar in sets to voluntary failure. There were no significant differences in RPE in the comparisons between RE+BFR and non-BFR HL-RE; after sensitivity analyses, it was found that the RPE was higher in non-BFR HL-RE in a fixed repetition scheme. In sets to voluntary failure, discomfort was higher in RE+BFR versus non-BFR HL-RE (SMD = 0.95; P < 0. 01); however, in a fixed scheme, the results were similar. Conclusion: In sets to voluntary failure, RPE is similar between RE+BFR and non-BFR exercise. In fixed repetition schemes, RE+BFR seems to promote higher RPE than non-BFR LL-RE and less than HL-RE. In sets to failure, discomfort appears to be similar between LL-RE with and without BFR; however, RE+BFR appears to promote greater discomfort than HL-RE. In fixed repetition schemes, the discomfort appears to be no different between RE+BFR and HL-RE, but is lower in non-BFR LL-RE.

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute Effect of Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction on Perceptual Responses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Queiros

Rolnick

Santos

et al. 2022

Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Jessee et al (2018) found that during their eight-week BFR study, subjects training to failure performed far less total volume load at every week at 80% LOP compared to 40% LOP. This might explain why both studies using pressures exceeding total LOP (Cook et al, 2017;de Lemos Muller et al, 2019) found significantly lower strength improvements in leg extension despite their participants training to failure, as early fatigability may have impaired the total repetition volume. Similarly, both studies who both had their BFR group train at high intensity, lower repetition protocols (60-80%1RM, 6-12 reps/set) did not see significantly different results compared to the control (Laurentino et al, 2008;Biazon et al, 2019).…”

Section: Hypoxia and Fatiguementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Number of protocols ≥100 (Max 150) 9 (Laurentino et al, 2008;Manimmanakorn et al, 2013;Cook et al, 2017;Biazon et al, 2019;de Lemos Muller et al, 2019) 80 10 (Laurentino et al, 2012;Lixandrão et al, 2015;Jessee et al, 2018;de Lemos Muller et al, 2019;Neto et al, 2019) 70 1 (Ruaro et al, 2019) 60 11 (May et al, 2018;Brandner et al, 2019;Gavanda et al, 2020;Mendonca et al, 2021) 50 9 (Fahs et al, 2015;Vechin et al, 2015;Kim et al, 2017;Bemben et al, 2019;Centner et al, 2019) 40-45 7 (Lixandrão et al, 2015;Jessee et al, 2018;Letieri et al, 2018;Hill et al, 2020) and non-BFR. BFR subjects in this study (Laurentino et al, 2008)however trained using a standard moderate repetition protocol rather than the higher repetition lower intensity protocol.…”

Section: %Lop Appliedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Leg extension/ quadricep extension 20 (Laurentino et al, 2008(Laurentino et al, , 2012Manimmanakorn et al, 2013;Fahs et al, 2015;Cook et al, 2017;Jessee et al, 2018;Letieri et al, 2018;May et al, 2018;Bemben et al, 2019;Biazon et al, 2019;Brandner et al, 2019;de Lemos Muller et al, 2019;Mendonca et al, 2021) Elbow flexion/ bicep curl 7 (Kim et al, 2017;May et al, 2018;Bemben et al, 2019;Brandner et al, 2019;de Lemos Muller et al, 2019;Neto et al, 2019;Hill et al, 2020) Leg flexion/ hamstring curl 5 (Cook et al, 2017;Letieri et al, 2018;May et al, 2018;Bemben et al, 2019) Squat/leg press 4 (Vechin et al, 2015;Cook et al, 2017;Bemben et al, 2019;Brandner et al, 2019) Bench press/chest press 3 (Bemben et al, 2019;Brandner et al, 2019;Neto et al, 2019) Calf raise 3 (Brandner et al, 2019;Gavanda et al, 2020;Mendonca et al, 2021) Lateral pulldown/ front Pulldown 2 (Bemben et al, 2019;Neto et al, 2019) Elbow extension/ tricep extension 1 (Neto et al, 2019) Seated row 1 (Brandner et al, 2019) Wrist flexion/ grip strength 1 (Ruaro et al, 2019) greater improvements in the non-BFR group in exercises where the primary muscle was too proximal su...…”

Section: Exercise Choice Number Of Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Laurentino et al, 2008;Lixandrão et al, 2015;Biazon et al, 2019) 50-60 3(Laurentino et al, 2008;Cook et al, 2017;May et al, 2018) 40 2(Cook et al, 2017;Ruaro et al, 2019) 30 20(Fahs et al, 2015;Cook et al, 2017;Kim et al, 2017;Letieri et al, 2018;May et al, 2018;Bemben et al, 2019;de Lemos Muller et al, 2019;Gavanda et al, 2020;Hill et al, 2020) 15-20 20(Laurentino et al, 2012;Manimmanakorn et al, 2013;Lixandrão et al, 2015;Jessee et al, 2018;Brandner et al, 2019;Neto et al, 2019;Clarkson et al, 2020;Mendonca et al, 2021) …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is There a Minimum Effective Dose for Vascular Occlusion During Blood Flow Restriction Training?

Das¹,

Paton²

2022

Front. Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundBlood flow restriction (BFR) training at lower exercise intensities has a range of applications, allowing subjects to achieve strength and hypertrophy gains matching those training at high intensity. However, there is no clear consensus on the percentage of limb occlusion pressure [%LOP, expressed as a % of the pressure required to occlude systolic blood pressure (SBP)] and percentage of one repetition max weight (%1RM) required to achieve these results. This review aims to explore what the optimal and minimal combination of LOP and 1RM is for significant results using BFR.MethodA literature search using PubMed, Scopus, Wiley Online, Springer Link, and relevant citations from review papers was performed, and articles assessed for suitability. Original studies using BFR with a resistance training exercise intervention, who chose a set %LOP and %1RM and compared to a non-BFR control were included in this review.ResultTwenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. %LOP ranged from 40 to 150%. %1RM used ranged from 15 to 80%. Training at 1RM ≤20%, or ≥ 80% did not produce significant strength results compared to controls. Applying %LOP of ≤50% and ≥ 80% did not produce significant strength improvement compared to controls. This may be due to a mechanism mediated by lactate accumulation, which is facilitated by increased training volume and a moderate exercise intensity.ConclusionTraining at a minimum of 30 %1RM with BFR is required for strength gains matching non-BFR high intensity training. Moderate intensity training (40–60%1RM) with BFR may produce results exceeding non-BFR high intensity however the literature is sparse. A %LOP of 50–80% is optimal for BFR training.

show abstract

Hormonal, immune, and oxidative stress responses to blood flow‐restricted exercise

Hjortshoej,

Aagaard,

Storgaard

et al. 2023

Acta Physiologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionHeavy‐load free‐flow resistance exercise (HL‐FFRE) is a widely used training modality. Recently, low‐load blood‐flow restricted resistance exercise (LL‐BFRRE) has gained attention in both athletic and clinical settings as an alternative when conventional HL‐FFRE is contraindicated or not tolerated. LL‐BFRRE has been shown to result in physiological adaptations in muscle and connective tissue that are comparable to those induced by HL‐FFRE. The underlying mechanisms remain unclear; however, evidence suggests that LL‐BFRRE involves elevated metabolic stress compared to conventional free‐flow resistance exercise (FFRE).AimThe aim was to evaluate the initial (<10 min post‐exercise), intermediate (10–20 min), and late (>30 min) hormonal, immune, and oxidative stress responses observed following acute sessions of LL‐BFRRE compared to FFRE in healthy adults.MethodsA systematic literature search of randomized and non‐randomized studies was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB2, ROBINS‐1) and TESTEX were used to evaluate risk of bias and study quality. Data extractions were based on mean change within groups.ResultsA total of 12525 hits were identified, of which 29 articles were included. LL‐BFRRE demonstrated greater acute increases in growth hormone responses when compared to overall FFRE at intermediate (SMD 2.04; 95% CI 0.87, 3.22) and late (SMD 2.64; 95% CI 1.13, 4.16) post‐exercise phases. LL‐BFRRE also demonstrated greater increase in testosterone responses compared to late LL‐FFRE.ConclusionThese results indicate that LL‐BFRRE can induce increased or similar hormone and immune responses compared to LL‐FFRE and HL‐FFRE along with attenuated oxidative stress responses compared to HL‐FFRE.

show abstract

Effects of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction on the perceived exertion, muscular resistance and endurance in healthy young adults

Cited by 10 publications

References 29 publications

Acute Effect of Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction on Perceptual Responses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Acute Effect of Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction on Perceptual Responses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Is There a Minimum Effective Dose for Vascular Occlusion During Blood Flow Restriction Training?

Hormonal, immune, and oxidative stress responses to blood flow‐restricted exercise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About