Blood flow restriction does not augment low force contractions taken to or near task failure

Twenty-five years of blood flow restriction training: What we know, what we don't, and where to next?

Blood flow restriction is a technique that involves inflating a cuff at the proximal portion of the limb with the goal of reducing arterial inflow into the muscle and venous outflow from the muscle. Low-load or low-intensity exercise in combination with blood flow restriction has been consistently shown to augment adaptations over the same/similar exercise without restriction, with changes in muscle size and strength being two of the most commonly measured adaptations. The purpose of this manuscript is to provide an updated narrative review on blood flow restriction. Blood flow restriction's history, methodology, safety, and efficacy are highlighted. We discuss the effects of blood flow restriction on changes in muscle size and strength, and also review work completed on other variables (e.g. bone, resting blood flow, tendon, pain sensitivity, cognition, orthostatic intolerance). We finish by highlighting six possible areas for future research: 1) identifying mechanisms for growth and strength; 2) sex differences in the effects of blood flow restriction; 3) individual responses to blood flow restriction; 4) influence of pressure versus amount of blood flow restricted; 5) application of blood flow restriction with higher-loads; and 6) what considerations should be made to test the effects of blood flow restriction.

Progression of total training volume in resistance training studies and its application to skeletal muscle growth

Progressive overload describes the gradual increase of stress placed on the body during exercise training, and is often quantified (i.e. in resistance training studies) through increases in total training volume (i.e. sets × repetitions × load) from the first to final week of the exercise training intervention. Within the literature, it has become increasingly common for authors to discuss skeletal muscle growth adaptations in the context of increases in total training volume (i.e. the magnitude progression in total training volume). The present manuscript discusses a physiological rationale for progressive overload and then explains why, in our opinion, quantifying the progression of total training volume within research investigations tells very little about muscle growth adaptations to resistance training. Our opinion is based on the following research findings: (1) a noncausal connection between increases in total training volume (i.e. progressively overloading the resistance exercise stimulus) and increases in skeletal muscle size; (2) similar changes in total training volume may not always produce similar increases in muscle size; and (3) the ability to exercise more and consequently amass larger increases in total training volume may not inherently produce more skeletal muscle growth. The methodology of quantifying changes in total training volume may therefore provide a means through which researchers can mathematically determine the total amount of external 'work' performed within a resistance training study. It may not, however, always explain muscle growth adaptations.

Potential Moderators of the Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy: A Meta-analysis Based on a Comparison with High-Load Resistance Training

BACKGROUND

While it has been examined whether there are similar magnitudes of muscle strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low-load resistance training combined with blood-flow restriction training (BFR-RT) and high-load resistance training (HL-RT), some important potential moderators (e.g., age, sex, upper and lower limbs, frequency and duration etc.) have yet to be analyzed further. Furthermore, training status, specificity of muscle strength tests (dynamic versus isometric or isokinetic) and specificity of muscle mass assessments (locations of muscle hypertrophy assessments) seem to exhibit different effects on the results of the analysis. The role of these influencing factors, therefore, remains to be elucidated.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of BFR- versus HL-RT on muscle adaptations, when considering the influence of population characteristics (training status, sex and age), protocol characteristics (upper or lower limbs, duration and frequency) and test specificity.

METHODS

Studies were identified through database searches based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular strength; (2) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular hypertrophy; (3) comparison of BFR-RT vs. HL-RT; (4) score ≥ 4 on PEDro scale; (5) means and standard deviations (or standard errors) are reported or allow estimation from graphs. In cases where the fifth criterion was not met, the data were requested directly from the authors.

RESULTS

The main finding of the present study was that training status was an important influencing factor in the effects of BFR-RT. The trained individuals may gain greater muscle strength and hypertrophy with BFR-RT as compared to HL-RT. However, the results showed that the untrained individuals experienced similar muscle mass gains and superior muscle strength gains in with HL-RT compared to BFR-RT.

CONCLUSION

Compared to HL-RT, training status is an important factor influencing the effects of the BFR-RT, in which trained can obtain greater muscle strength and hypertrophy gains in BFR-RT, while untrained individuals can obtain greater strength gains and similar hypertrophy in HL-RT.

The Effect of Combining Blood Flow Restriction with the Nordic Hamstring Exercise on Hamstring Strength: Randomized Controlled Trial

(1) Background: It is a matter of curiosity what effect the blood flow restriction (BFR) method, which is usually combined with low-intensity resistance exercises, will have when used with high-intensity eccentric exercises. (2) Methods: The present study examined the effects of combining BFR with nordic hamstring exercises (NHEs) on hamstring muscle strength, bilateral deficit (BLD), and training volume. Thirty young female volleyball players, who trained three times a week, participated voluntarily in the study. These players were stratified into three groups, each comprising ten individuals: a control group (CG), an NHE group, and an NHE + BFR group. Hamstring muscle strength and BLD values were determined using an H-BORD device, while training volume was measured in terms of sets and repetitions. (3) Results: Statistical analysis revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in non-dominant and dominant leg peak torque parameters in the exercise groups (F = 2.65; p = 0.097; ηp2 = 0.17; F = 1.15; p = 0.0334; ηp2 = 0.084), while the total training volume was lower in the NHE + BFR group. (4) Conclusions: As a result, it was seen that adding the BFR method to NHE did not provide additional gains. However, due to the low training volume of BFR + NHE, it may be recommended to apply BFR together with NHE to athlete groups.

Skeletal Muscle Adaptations to High-Load Resistance Training With Pre-Exercise Blood Flow Restriction

ABSTRACT

Hammert, WB, Moreno, EN, Martin, CC, Jessee, MB, and Buckner, SL. Skeletal muscle adaptations to high-load resistance training with pre-exercise blood flow restriction. J Strength Cond Res 37(12): 2381-2388, 2023-This study aimed to determine if blood flow restriction (BFR) could augment adaptations to a high-load training protocol that was inadequate for muscle growth. Forty nontrained individuals had each arm assigned to 1 of 3 elbow flexion protocols: (a) high-load resistance training [TRAD; 4 sets to muscular failure at 70% 1 repetition maximum (1RM)], (b) low repetition high-load resistance training with pre-exercise BFR (PreBFR; 4 sets of 3 repetitions at 70% 1RM + 3 min of pre-exercise BFR), and (c) low repetition high-load resistance training (LRTRAD); 4 sets of 3 repetitions at 70% 1RM). Muscle thickness (MT), 1RM strength, and local muscular endurance (LME) of the elbow flexors were measured before and after 8 weeks. An alpha level of 0.05 was used for all comparisons. For the 50% site, MT increased for TRAD (0.211 cm, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.143-0.280), PreBFR (0.105 cm, 95% CI: 0.034-0.175), and LRTRAD (0.073 cm, 95% CI: 0.000-0.146). The change for TRAD was greater than PreBFR and LRTRAD. For the 60% site, MT increased for TRAD (0.235 cm, 95% CI: 0.153-0.317), PreBFR (0.097 cm, 95% CI: 0.014-0.180), and LRTRAD (0.082 cm, 95% CI: 0.000-0.164). The change for TRAD was greater than PreBFR and LRTRAD. For the 70% site MT increased for TRAD (0.308 cm, 95% CI: 0.247-0.369), PreBFR (0.103 cm, 95% CI: 0.041-0.166), and LRTRAD (0.070 cm, 95% CI: 0.004-0.137). The change for TRAD was greater than PreBFR and LRTRAD. One repetition maximum and LME significantly increased for each condition, with no differences between conditions. Collapsed across conditions 1RM strength increased 2.094 kg (95% CI: 1.771-2.416) and LME increased 7.0 repetitions (95% CI: 5.7-8.3). In conclusion, the application of BFR to low-repetition, high-load training did not enhance the adaptative response.

Acute muscular and cardiovascular responses to high load training with pre-exercise blood flow restriction

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to examine the acute muscular and cardiovascular responses to applying blood flow restriction (BFR) before high-load training.

METHODS

Forty trained individuals visited the lab on three occasions. On Visit 1, participants completed paperwork and performed strength assessments. During Visits 2 and 3, participants completed four exercise conditions (one in each arm during each visit) as follows: (1) traditional resistance training (TRAD), (2) low load training with BFR (LLBFR), (3) low repetition high load training with pre-exercise BFR (PreBFR), and (4) low repetition traditional training (LRTRAD). Blood pressure, muscle thickness (MT), and isometric strength (ISO) were measured before and after exercise.

RESULTS

Data are displayed as means (SD). Immediately following exercise, MT in TRAD was greater compared with PreBFR (mean difference = 0.18[0.30] cm, p < 0.001) and LRTRAD (mean difference = 0.28[0.30] cm, p < 0.001). In addition, LLBFR demonstrated greater MT compared with PreBFR (mean difference = 0.24[0.30] cm, p < 0.001]. Immediately following exercise, ISO was lower in TRAD compared with PreBFR (mean difference = 33.8[46.9]N, p < 0.001) and the LRTRAD condition (mean difference = 32.8[50.4]N, p < 0.001). In addition, ISO was lower in LLBFR compared with PreBFR (mean difference = 43.9 [47.4]N, p < 0.001) and LRTRAD (mean difference = 42.9 [43.8]N, p < 0.001). Immediately following exercise, systolic blood pressure was greater in TRAD compared with PreBFR and LRTRAD.

CONCLUSION

The application of BFR before engaging in high-load training does not seem to augment the muscular responses to exercise when compared with traditional high loads alone; however, it may pose less demand on the cardiovascular system.

Sex segregation in strength sports: Do equal-sized muscles express the same levels of strength between sexes?

OBJECTIVES

Concerns have been raised against the current two-sex binary category in sports competitions. The thesis states that if males and females were separated based on muscle size, it would negate the strength advantage between the sexes. We tested the possible sex differences in various strength outcomes when pair-matched for muscle thickness.

METHODS

A total of 16 different data sets (n = 963) were assessed to pair-match females with males who had a muscle thickness value within 2%. We further compared the competition performances of the smallest male weight class within the International Powerlifting Federation (IPF) to different weight classes in females.

RESULTS

Overall, 76%-88% of the strength assessments were greater in males than females with pair-matched muscle thickness, regardless of contraction types (i.e., isotonic, isometric, isokinetic). Additionally, males in the lightest weight division in the IPF largely outperformed females in heavier weight divisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results would suggest that segregation based on muscle mass or surrogates of muscle mass (e.g., lean body mass) might not be an appropriate classification to create fair competition within strength sports. This is not to refute the concept of the desegregation of the two-sex binary category but to present data that raises important concerns about the potential sex-based differences in strength performance.

Progressive overload without progressing load? The effects of load or repetition progression on muscular adaptations

Background

Progressive overload is a principle of resistance training exercise program design that typically relies on increasing load to increase neuromuscular demand to facilitate further adaptations. However, little attention has been given to another way of increasing demand-increasing the number of repetitions.

Objective

This study aimed to compare the effects of two resistance training programs: (1) increasing load while keeping repetition range constant vs (2) increasing repetitions while keeping load constant. We aimed to compare the effects of these programs on lower body muscle hypertrophy, muscle strength, and muscle endurance in resistance-trained individuals over an 8-week study period.

Methods

Forty-three participants with at least 1 year of consistent lower body resistance training experience were randomly assigned to one of two experimental, parallel groups: A group that aimed to increase load while keeping repetitions constant (LOAD: n = 22; 13 men, nine women) or a group that aimed to increase repetitions while keeping load constant (REPS: n = 21; 14 men, seven women). Subjects performed four sets of four lower body exercises (back squat, leg extension, straight-leg calf raise, and seated calf raise) twice per week. We assessed one repetition maximum (1RM) in the Smith machine squat, muscular endurance in the leg extension, countermovement jump height, and muscle thickness along the quadriceps and calf muscles. Between-group effects were estimated using analyses of covariance, adjusted for pre-intervention scores and sex.

Results

Rectus femoris growth modestly favored REPS (adjusted effect estimate (CI90%), sum of sites: 2.8 mm [-0.5, 5.8]). Alternatively, dynamic strength increases slightly favored LOAD (2.0 kg [-2.4, 7.8]), with differences of questionable practical significance. No other notable between-group differences were found across outcomes (muscle thicknesses, <1 mm; endurance, <1%; countermovement jump, 0.1 cm; body fat, <1%; leg segmental lean mass, 0.1 kg), with narrow CIs for most outcomes.

Conclusion

Both progressions of repetitions and load appear to be viable strategies for enhancing muscular adaptations over an 8-week training cycle, which provides trainers and trainees with another promising approach to programming resistance training.

The feasibility, safety, and efficacy of upper limb garment-integrated blood flow restriction training in healthy adults

Background

Blood flow restriction training (BFR) has been demonstrated to increase muscle hypertrophy and strength, but has logistical and cost barriers. Garment-integrated BFR has the potential to reduce these barriers by lowering equipment demands and cost. The primary aim of the study was to explore the feasibility of garment-integrated BFR in the upper limb of healthy adults, with a secondary aim of exploring safety and efficacy.

Methods

Physically active and otherwise healthy participants with no previous experience with BFR were sought. Eligible participants completed a five-week garment-integrated BFR programme that involved completing two sessions per week. Feasibility was determined by a priori defined thresholds for recruitment, adherence to the garment-integrated BFR programme, and data collection. Safety was determined by recording adverse events and by monitoring for total arterial occlusion pressure using a fingertip pulse oximeter. Efficacy was determined by measuring push-ups to volitional failure, arm girth, and number of prescribed repetitions completed. Feasibility and safety outcomes were reported descriptively or as a proportion with associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Mean change, 95% CIs, and associated effect sizes were calculated for efficacy outcomes.

Results

Twenty-eight participants were included (15 men, 13 women; mean age 31.6 years [±9.1]) and 27 successfully completed the study. Participants were successfully recruited within three months and 278/280 sessions were successfully completed (adherence=99.3%, 95% CI 97.4%, 99.9%). Minimal adverse events were reported; one incident of localised bruising (0.36%, 95% CI 0.06%, 2.0%) and three incidences of excessive pain during or post-exercise from two separate participants (1.07%, 95% CI 0.03%, 3.1%). 82/2240 pulse oximeter readings were not recorded (3.7%, 95% CI 2.9%, 4.5%). Mean push-ups to volitional failure increased by 40% (mean change=8.0, 95% CI 6, 10, d=1.40). Mean arm girth and number of prescribed repetitions completed were unchanged.

Conclusions

Garment-integrated BFR is feasible and has no signal of important harm in the upper limb of healthy adults, and could proceed to a future trial with stop/go criteria for randomisation. Further work is required to investigate the efficacy of garment-integrated BFR and determine its equivalence or superiority compared to existing BFR methods.

Muscle growth adaptations to high-load training and low-load training with blood flow restriction in calf muscles

PURPOSE

To compare muscle growth adaptations between traditional high-load training and low-load training with blood flow restriction (BFR) in the calf muscles over 6 weeks.

METHODS

27 trained individuals performed calf exercise in both legs for 6 weeks. Each leg was randomly assigned to one of the two conditions: (1) Traditional (70% of 1RM) training (TRAD); and (2) Low-load (30% of 1RM) training with BFR. In addition, subjects performed standing calf raises with or without BFR. Measures were taken pre- and post-intervention.

RESULTS

For the posterior muscle site, there was no condition (BFR vs. TRAD) × time (pre vs. post) interaction (p = 0.15). In addition, there was no main effect for condition (p = 0.83) or time (p = 0.20). For the lateral muscle site, there was no condition × time interaction (p = 0.47). In addition, there was no main effect for condition (p = 0.10) or time (p = 0.57). For the medial muscle site, there was no condition × time interaction (p = 0.60). In addition, there was no main effect for condition (p = 0.44) or time (p = 0.72). For RPE, there was no condition × time interaction. However, there was a main effect for condition (p < 0.05) with BFR having higher RPE. For discomfort, there was no condition × time interaction. However, there was a main effect for condition (p < 0.001) with the BFR condition displaying higher discomfort.

CONCLUSION

No muscle growth was detected in the calf musculature. BFR was not more effective at eliciting muscle hypertrophy compared to traditional training. However, it was accompanied with higher exertion and discomfort.

Do exercise-induced increases in muscle size contribute to strength in resistance-trained individuals?

AIM

Previous work in non-resistance-trained individuals has found that an increase in muscle size has no additive effect on changes in strength. However, it is thought that muscle growth is of increased importance for resistance-trained individuals.

PURPOSE

Experiment 1: To examine changes in muscle thickness (MT) and one repetition maximum (1RM) strength following 8 weeks of bi-weekly 1RM practice or traditional training. Experiment 2: To determine whether increasing muscle size increases strength potential when followed by 4 weeks of 1RM training.

METHODS

Participants performed biceps curls for 8 weeks (Experiment 1). One arm performed 4 sets of as many repetitions as possible with approximately 70% of 1RM (TRAD), and the other arm performed a single 1RM. For experiment 2, both arms trained for muscle size and strength.

RESULTS

Experiment 1 (n = 25): for MT, the posterior probabilities favoured the hypothesis that MT changed more in the TRAD condition [mean difference: 50% site 0.15 (-0.09, 0.21) cm; 60% site 0.14 (0.06, 0.23) cm; 70% site 0.17 (0.10, 0.23) cm]. For 1RM strength, each condition changed equivalently. Experiment 2 (n = 18): for MT, the posterior probabilities favoured the hypothesis that MT changed similarly between conditions following a 4-week strength phase. For changes in 1RM strength, the evidence favoured neither hypothesis (i.e. null vs. alternative). Of note, the mean difference between conditions was small [0.72 (4.3) kg].

CONCLUSIONS

1RM training produces similar increases in strength as traditional training. Experiment 2 suggests that increases in muscle mass may not increase the 'potential' for strength gain.

Loading Recommendations for Muscle Strength, Hypertrophy, and Local Endurance: A Re-Examination of the Repetition Continuum

Loading recommendations for resistance training are typically prescribed along what has come to be known as the “repetition continuum”, which proposes that the number of repetitions performed at a given magnitude of load will result in specific adaptations. Specifically, the theory postulates that heavy load training optimizes increases maximal strength, moderate load training optimizes increases muscle hypertrophy, and low-load training optimizes increases local muscular endurance. However, despite the widespread acceptance of this theory, current research fails to support some of its underlying presumptions. Based on the emerging evidence, we propose a new paradigm whereby muscular adaptations can be obtained, and in some cases optimized, across a wide spectrum of loading zones. The nuances and implications of this paradigm are discussed herein.

Strength testing or strength training: considerations for future research

Maximal strength testing is often performed to assess the efficacy of training programs or as a way to prescribe exercise load. Generally, it is believed that high load exercise is superior to low load exercise at increasing absolute strength, however this is not always the case (i.e. strength increases similarly between groups). We hypothesized that some of the discrepancy in the literature may be related to performing the strength test itself. To investigate this further we reviewed the literature looking for studies comparing high load and low load exercise. The included studies were separated into 'no extra practice' and 'practice'. No extra practice means the strength test was only performed at pre and post whereas practice refers to additional strength tests performed throughout the training intervention. Our results indicated that the differences between high load and low load exercise can be reduced when the group training with a low load is allowed additional exposure to the maximal strength test. This suggests that repeated exposure to strength tests may augment low load training adaptations and influence the outcomes. We discuss potential moderators of this relationship (e.g. how low is the low load, complexity of the skill) and offer considerations for future research. Based on this it would be recommended that when investigating the effects of low load training strength tests should be limited to pre and post intervention or if a control group is utilized then the control group should receive the same number of exposures to the strength test.

The Effect of Blood Flow Restriction Therapy on Recovery After Experimentally Induced Muscle Weakness and Pain

Wong, V, Dankel, SJ, Spitz, RW, Bell, ZW, Viana, RB, Chatakondi, RN, Abe, T, and Loenneke, JP. The effect of blood flow restriction therapy on recovery after experimentally induced muscle weakness and pain. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-The purpose was to determine if blood flow restriction with no external load could be used as a means of active therapy after experimentally induced fatigue and soreness. Twelve women and 7 men (aged 18-35 years) participated in a randomized controlled trial using a within-subject design. The study intervention was 3 consecutive visits. Visit 1 included the fatiguing/soreness-inducing protocol for the elbow flexors, which was performed only once during the study. Torque was measured before/after to confirm individuals began in a weakened state. Subjects then completed blood flow restriction therapy on one arm and the sham therapy on the other. Subjects performed elbow flexion/contraction with no external load on both arms. Torque was measured once more 10 minutes after the fatiguing/soreness-inducing protocol. Twenty-four hours later, soreness and torque were assessed in each arm, followed by another bout of therapy. Forty-eight hours after the initial visit, soreness and torque were measured again. There were no differences (median difference [95% credible interval]) in the recovery of torque between the blood flow restriction and sham therapy conditions at 10 minutes (0.5 [-2.7, 3.8] N·m), 24 hours (-2.34 [-6, 1.14] N·m), or 48 hours (-1.94 [-5.45, 1.33] N·m). There were also no differences in ratings of soreness at 24 hours (-2.48 [-10.05, 5.05]) or 48 hours (2.58 [-4.96, 10.09]). Our results indicate that this specific model of blood flow restriction therapy did not enhance the recovery of the muscle compared with a sham condition without the application of pressure.