The Effect of Cuff Width on Muscle Adaptations after Blood Flow Restriction Training

Laurentino, Gilberto; Loenneke, Jeremy P.; Teixeira, Emerson Luiz; Nakajima, Eliza; Iared, Wagner; Tricoli, Valmor

doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000000833

Cited by 44 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In an early study by Crenshaw et al (1988), it was observed that wider cuffs (18 cm) likely occluded arterial blood flow at a lower overall pressure in comparison with narrow cuffs (4.5 cm). Similar results for arterial occlusion pressures for the lower body have been confirmed (Graham et al 1993, Loenneke et al 2012b and also arterial occlusion pressures for the upperbody (Moore, Garfin & Hargens 1987), however a recent study has demonstrated their to be no differences in training induced adaptations to different cuff widths (i.e wide versus narrow) when the LOP is matched (Laurentino et al 2016).…”

Section: Bfr Methodology and Exercise Prescriptionsupporting

confidence: 69%

The role of blood flow restriction training for applied practitioners: A questionnaire-based survey

Patterson¹,

Brandner

2017

Journal of Sports Sciences

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the study was to investigate the current use of blood flow restriction (BFR) by practitioners during exercise/training. A questionnaire was developed and data were obtained from 250 participants, with 115 stating that they had prescribed BFR as an intervention. The most common exercise intervention used in combination with BFR was resistance exercise (99/115), followed by during passive (30/115) conditions, and during aerobic exercise (22/115). The main outcome measure for using the technique was to increase muscle mass (32.6%) followed by rehabilitation from injury (24.2%). Over half of respondents (57.4%) reported that they did not use the same cuff widths for the lower body and upper body, with varying final restriction pressures also being utilised during each different exercise modality. Most practitioners performed the technique for ~10 min each training session, 1-4 times per week. Eighty percent of practitioners rated the use of BFR as very good-excellent. The incidence rate of side effects was largest for delayed onset muscle soreness (39.2%), numbness (18.5%), fainting/dizziness (14.6%) and bruising (13.1%). These results indicate that the use of BFR training is widespread amongst practitioners; however, care should be taken to ensure that practice matches current research to ensure the safety of this technique.

show abstract

Section: Bfr Methodology and Exercise Prescriptionsupporting

confidence: 69%

The role of blood flow restriction training for applied practitioners: A questionnaire-based survey

Patterson¹,

Brandner

2017

Journal of Sports Sciences

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, given that the results of previous studies completed in the lower body are quite similar to those found in the upper body, we are confident the responses may not be different, although a long-term training study would be necessary to confirm such. Finally, the relative restrictive pressures investigated in the current study were applied only using a narrow (5 cm) cuff, and it is possible the muscular response may be different when using a wider cuff (Kacin & Strazar, 2011;Ellefsen et al, 2015); however, Laurentino et al (2016) suggested that the response in the upper body is similar when the restrictive pressure is made relative to the AOP of the cuff being used for BFR.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 94%

The acute muscular response to blood flow‐restricted exercise with very low relative pressure

Jessee

Mattocks

Buckner

et al. 2017

Clin Physio Funct Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate the acute responses to blood flow-restricted (BFR) exercise across low, moderate and high relative pressures. Muscle thickness, maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and electromyography (EMG) amplitude were assessed following exercise with six different BFR pressures: 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 50% and 90% of arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). There were differences between each time point within each condition for muscle thickness, which increased postexercise [+0·47 (0·40, 0·54) cm] and then trended towards baseline. For MVC, higher pressures resulted in greater decrements than lower pressures [e.g. 10% AOP: -20·7 (-15·5, -25·8) Nm versus 90% AOP: -24 (-19·1, -28·9) Nm] postexercise. EMG amplitude increased from the first three repetitions to the last three repetitions within each set. When using a common BFR protocol with 30% 1RM, applying BFR does not seem to augment acute responses over that of exercise alone when exercise is taken to failure.

show abstract

“…Blood flow restriction was applied by placing a 5 cm wide nylon cuff (SC5, Hokanson, Bellevue, WA) to the proximal portion of the exercising limb and inflating it to either 40 or 80 % of pre-exercise arterial occlusion. These particular pressures were investigated as they are often used in the blood flow restriction research [4,7,14,27] and both have been shown to elicit muscle adaptation [8,15]. After inflation the participants performed four sets of elbow flexion with one of three experimental loads (10, 15, or 30 % of 1RM).…”

Section: Blood Flow Restriction Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cardiovascular and Perceptual Response to Very Low Load Blood Flow Restricted Exercise

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study sought to compare cardiovascular and perceptual responses to blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise using various pressure and load combinations. Fourteen participants completed four sets of BFR elbow flexion using 10, 15 and 20% 1RM with 40 and 80% arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). AOP was measured before and after exercise. Perceived exertion (RPE) and discomfort were assessed before exercise and after each set. Data presented as mean (95% CI), except for RPE and discomfort: 25, 50, 75 percentiles. AOP increased post-exercise (p<0.001) with larger magnitudes seen when increasing load and pressure (p<0.001) [e. g., 10/40 ΔAOP: 21 (10, 32) mmHg vs. 20/80 ΔAOP: 62 (45, 78) mmHg], which also augmented RPE (p<0.001) [e. g., 4th set 10/40: (7, 8.5, 12) vs. 4th set 20/80: (12.75, 15.5, 17.25)] and discomfort (p<0.001) [e. g., 4 set 10/40: (0.75, 2, 4.25) vs. 4 set 20/80: (4.25, 6, 8,)]. Volume increased via greater loads (p<0.001), and participants only reached failure during 20% 1RM conditions [20/40: 74 (74, 75) repetitions; 20/80: 71 (68, 75) repetitions]. When performing BFR exercise with very low loads the magnitudes of the cardiovascular and perceptual responses are augmented by increasing the load and by applying a higher relative pressure.

show abstract

The Effect of Cuff Width on Muscle Adaptations after Blood Flow Restriction Training

Cited by 44 publications

References 19 publications

The role of blood flow restriction training for applied practitioners: A questionnaire-based survey

The role of blood flow restriction training for applied practitioners: A questionnaire-based survey

The acute muscular response to blood flow‐restricted exercise with very low relative pressure

The Cardiovascular and Perceptual Response to Very Low Load Blood Flow Restricted Exercise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About