Inflammation marker, damage marker and anabolic hormone responses to resistance training with vascular restriction in older males

Abstract

The goal of this study was to examine anabolic hormone, muscle damage marker and inflammation marker responses to two types of resistance training protocols in older men. Thirty-six healthy older males (mean age = 56.6 ± 0.6 years) completed 6 weeks of high-intensity resistance training (HI-RT), low-intensity resistance training with vascular restriction (LI-BFR) or no exercise control group (CON) three times per week. Three upper body exercises were performed by both exercise groups at the same intensity (at 80% 1-RM), but lower body exercises were performed by the HI-RT group at 80% 1-RM and by the LI-BFR group at 20% 1-RM with vascular restriction. Resting serum creatine kinase (CK), interleukin 6 (IL-6), insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), IGF binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) and testosterone (T) were measured before and after training. No significant group differences in resting CK, IL-6, IGF-I, IGFBP-3 and T were detected following training (P>0.05). In addition, there were no significant changes in muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), but a trend for significant decreases in the percent changes in thigh subcutaneous fat (P = 0.051). Although training-induced anabolic hormone response did not reach statistical significance, our findings on CK and IL-6 indicated that the LI-BFR training protocol was safe and well tolerated for older men to perform to improve muscular strength.

Blood flow restriction training in clinical musculoskeletal rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…A number of studies examined maximal isometric27 42 56 57 61 and isokinetic27 41 42 49 56 57 strength. Muscle size was assessed by examining muscle CSA,26 27 42 51–53 56 59 61–63 muscle mass,56 muscle volume,27 41 muscle thickness58 60 and fat cross-sectional area (CSA) 59. Studies that assessed physical function included tests of reaction time,54 stair climb power,41 single leg balance,54 timed stands,53 10 m walking time,54 maximum step distance,54 functional reach test,54 chair stand26 56 and the timed up and go test 26 50 53 54 56.…”

Blood flow restricted training leads to myocellular macrophage infiltration and upregulation of heat shock proteins, but no apparent muscle damage

“…; Karabulut et al . ). These diverging observations could potentially rely on different time courses of blood sampling (i.e.…”

“…; Karabulut et al . ) and inflammation (C‐Reactive Protein, interleukin‐6 (IL‐6)) (Clark et al . ; Karabulut et al .…”

“…A majority of studies have reported no or minor changes in circulating markers of muscle damage (i.e. creatine kinase (CK), myoglobin) (Takarada et al 2000a;Abe et al 2006;Karabulut et al 2013) and inflammation (C-Reactive Protein, interleukin-6 (IL-6)) (Clark et al 2010;Karabulut et al 2013;Patterson et al 2013) in response to acute and longitudinal BFR exercise modes. In contrast, a recent study reported large (11-to 36-fold) increases in circulating CK and myoglobin levels 2 and 4 days after an acute bout of unaccustomed BFR exercise indicating severe acute muscle damage (Sieljacks et al 2016).…”

Resistance Exercise Performed at Different Degrees of Arterial Occlusion Pressure does not Induce Prolonged Oxidative Stress or Muscle Damage

“…Even though several studies have investigated BFR exercise-induced oxidative stress and muscle damage [7,11,[23][24][25] There was no significant difference for levels of delayed-onset muscle soreness following any of the post-exercise testing times (1 h, 24 h and 48 h: p > 0.05) ( Table 1 and Table 3). Comparison of delayed-onset muscle soreness at rest, 1 h, 24 h, and 48 h post-resistance exercise performed at different levels of AOP (n = 12).…”