Low-Intensity Sprint Training With Blood Flow Restriction Improves 100-m Dash

Acute Effects of a Practical Blood Flow Restriction Device During Swimming Exercise

Purpose: The present study aimed to analyze: 1) the reliability of the tissue saturation index (TSI) and ratings of perceived discomfort (RPD) responses wearing a neoprene practical cuff (PrC), comparing with the responses from traditional (TrC) pneumatic cuffs (study I); 2) the effects of PrC on metabolic (blood lactate concentration, BLC), perceptual (rate of perceived effort, RPE) and kinematic responses at sub-maximal swimming velocities (study II). Methods: Study I; 1) PrC test-retest at rest and during swimming ergometer exercise; 2) BFR at rest with TrC inflated to different percentages of the minimum arterial occlusion pressure (MAOP; 60, 80, 100, 120 and 140%). Test-retest reliability of TSI and RPD was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and comparisons among conditions were analyzed by one-way repeated-measures ANOVA. Study II; 1) 50, 200 and 400 m swimming performances; 2) sub-maximal incremental swimming protocol with and without PrC. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare all variables during sub-maximal velocities. Results: TSI (ICC = 0.81; 95%CI 0.62-0.91) and RPD (ICC = 0.97; 95%CI 0.94-0.99) were reliable under restricted exercise using PrC. TSI during restricted exercise was lower (p <.001) compared to unrestricted exercise (6.8 ± 6.1% vs. 21.6 ± 8.2% of physiological normalization). PrC showed higher BLC only at or above 91% of critical velocity (p < .03), while stroke rate and RPE were higher (p < .005), and stroke length was lower (p < .03) during all swimming velocities. Conclusion: This easy-to-handle and affordable practical BFR device increased physiological stress at sub-maximal efforts which could be an additional training tool for swimmers.

Five-Week, Low-Intensity Blood Flow Restriction Rowing Improves V̇ o2 max in Elite Rowers

ABSTRACT

Held, S, Rappelt, L, Rein, R, Deutsch, J-P, Wiedenmann, T, and Donath, L. Five-week, low-intensity, blood flow restriction rowing improves V̇ o2 max in elite rowers. J Strength Cond Res 38(6): e299-e303, 2024-This controlled intervention study examined the effects of low-intensity rowing with blood flow restriction (BFR) on maximal oxygen uptake (V̇ o2 max), peak power output during ramp testing (PPO), and 2000-m time trial performance (P2k). Eleven, highly elite, male rowers (22.1 ± 1.6 years; 92.6 ± 3.8 kg; 1.93 ± 0.04 m; 7.9. ± 2.2 years rowing experience; 20.4 ± 2.0 h·w -1 training volume; 11.9 ± 1.1 session per week) trained 5 weeks without BFR (Base) followed by a 5-week BFR intervention period. BFR of the lower limb was applied through customized elastic wraps. BFR took place 3 times a week (accumulated net pBFR: 60 min·wk -1 ; occlusion per session: 2 times 10 min·session -1 ) and was used exclusively at low intensities (<2 mmol·L -1 ). V̇ o2 max, PPO, and P2k were examined before, between, and after both intervention periods. Bayesian's credible intervals revealed relevantly increased V̇ o2 max +0.30 L·min -1 (95% credible interval: +0.00 to +0.61 L·min -1 ) adaptations through BFR. By contrast, PPO +14 W (-6 to +34 W) and P2k -5 W (-14 to +3 W) were not noticeably affected by the BFR intervention. This study revealed that 15 sessions of BFR application with a cumulative total BFR load of 5 h over a 5-week macrocycle increased V̇ o2 max remarkably. Thus, pBFR might serve as a promising tool to improve aerobic capacity in highly trained elite rowers.

Blood flow restriction therapy with exercise are no better than exercise alone in improving athletic performance, muscle strength, and hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefits of Blood Flow Restriction Therapy (BFRT) have gained attention in recent times.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to evaluate the immediate (up to 24 hours), intermediate (up to 6 weeks), and long term (6-10 weeks) effects of BFRT plus exercises (EX) compared to EX only on athletic performance (sprint and jump performance), muscle strength, and hypertrophy in athletes and physically active population.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to select randomized controlled trials across four electronic databases from inception till April 2021. The search yielded twenty-seven studies in total.

RESULTS

Based on eligibility criteria, twenty-one studies were analyzed. No differences were found between both groups for immediate (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.31, 0.27) and long-term effects (SMD -0.30, 95%CI -0.90, 0.30) on sprint performance. For jump performance, no significant effect was observed immediately (SMD -0.02 (95% CI -1.06, 1.02) and long term (SMD -0.40 (95% CI -1.46, 0.67). Similarly, muscle torque at intermediate (SMD 0.90 (95% CI -1.01, 2.81) and long term (SMD -0.54 (95% CI -1.19, 0.12), muscle strength at intermediate (SMD 1.12 (95% CI 0.20, 2.04), and long term (SMD -0.07 (95% CI -0.56, 0.42) also showed non-significant effects. Muscle hypertrophy at intermediate (SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.31, 0.63) and long term (SMD -0.20 (95% CI -0.90, 0.50) were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference observed in BFRT plus EX group compared to the EX-group on athletic performance, muscle strength, and muscle hypertrophy.

Low-load Resistance Exercise with Perceptually Primed Practical Blood Flow Restriction Induces Similar Motor Performance Fatigue, Physiological Changes, and Perceptual Responses Compared to Traditional Blood Flow Restriction in Males and Females

In the recent past, practical blood flow restriction (pBFR) using non-pneumatic, usually elastic cuffs has been established as a cost-effective alternative to traditional blood flow restriction (BFR) using pneumatic cuffs, especially for training in large groups. This study investigated whether low-load resistance exercise with perceptually primed pBFR using an elastic knee wrap is suitable to induce similar motor performance fatigue as well as physiological and perceptual responses compared to traditional BFR using a pneumatic nylon cuff in males and females. In a randomized, counterbalanced cross-over study, 30 healthy subjects performed 4 sets (30-15-15-15 repetitions) of unilateral knee extensions at 20% of their one-repetition-maximum. In the pBFR condition, each individual was perceptually primed to a BFR pressure corresponding to 60% of their arterial occlusion pressure. Before and after exercise, maximal voluntary torque, maximal muscle activity, and cuff pressure-induced discomfort were assessed. Moreover, physiological (i.e., muscle activity, muscle oxygenation) and perceptual responses (i.e., effort and exercise-induced leg muscle pain) were recorded during exercise. Moderate correlations with no differences between pBFR and BFR were found regarding the decline in maximal voluntary torque and maximal muscle activity. Furthermore, no to very strong correlations between conditions, with no differences, were observed for muscle activity, muscle oxygenation, and perceptual responses during exercise sets. However, cuff pressure-induced discomfort was lower in the pBFR compared to the BFR condition. These results indicate that low-load resistance exercise combined with perceptually primed pBFR is a convenient and less discomfort inducing alternative to traditional BFR. This is especially relevant for BFR training with people who have a low cuff-induced discomfort tolerance.

Repeated-Sprint Training With Blood-Flow Restriction Improves Repeated-Sprint Ability Similarly to Unrestricted Training at Reduced External Loads

PURPOSE

This study examined performance and physiological adaptations following 3 weeks of repeated-sprint training (RST) with blood-flow restriction (BFR) or without (non-BFR).

METHODS

Twenty-six semiprofessional and amateur adult male team-sport players were assessed for repeated-sprint ability, anaerobic capacity, leg lean mass, neuromuscular function, and maximal aerobic capacity before and after RST. Participants completed 9 cycling RST sessions (3 sets of 5-7 × 5-s sprints, 25-s passive recovery, 3-min rest) over a 3-week period with BFR or non-BFR.

RESULTS

During RST sessions, the BFR group demonstrated lower mean power output compared with non-BFR (-14.5%; g = 1.48; P = .001). Significant improvements (P < .05) in mean and peak power output during repeated-sprint ability (+4.1%; g = 0.42, and + 2.2%; g = 0.25, respectively) and anaerobic capacity (+4.8%; g = 0.47, and + 4.7%; g = 0.32, respectively) tests, leg lean mass (+2.0%; g = 0.16), and peak aerobic power (+3.3%; g = 0.25) were observed from pretesting to posttesting without any between-groups differences. No significant changes (P > .05) were observed for maximal isometric voluntary contraction and maximal aerobic capacity. Peak rate of force development decreased (P = .003) in both groups following RST (-14.6%; g = 0.65), without any between-groups differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated-sprint ability, anaerobic capacity, leg lean mass, and peak aerobic power improved following 3 weeks of RST; however, the addition of BFR did not further enhance adaptations. Interestingly, comparable improvements were achieved between groups despite lower external loads experienced during RST sessions with BFR.

Effects of blood flow restriction training on sports performance in athletes: a systematic review with meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) is an effective training method to improve sports performance in healthy athletes. Nevertheless, a systematic review with meta-analysis regarding how BFRT affects sports performance in athletes is still lacking. Consequently, the study attempted to expand and consolidate the prior studies regarding the effect of BFRT on technical and physical performance in athletes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This study was based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes) statement guidelines for a systematic review of the academic databases Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, EBSCOhost (SportDiscus), and Google Scholar. The PEDro scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included publications, which ranged from moderate to high quality. The systematic review protocol was registered on inplasy.com (INPLASY202380049).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Out of 249 studies identified, 93 articles were evaluated as eligible, and after the screening, 18 studies were finally included in this systematic review. Meta-analysis results showed a significant enhancement on vertical jump height in the BFRT group compared to the control group (SMD=1.39, 95% CI=0.30-2.49, P=0.01). BFRT was able to significantly increase maximal oxygen uptake (SMD=1.65, 95% CI=0.56-2.74, P<0.01). While no significant improvement in sprint time was observed (SMD= -0.18, 95% CI=-1.18-0.82, P=0.115).

CONCLUSIONS

The finding suggests that BFRT is beneficial to athletes as this training method can be effective in enhancing physical and technical performance in athletes. Nevertheless, further analysis needs to be conducted to fully determine the effectiveness of the moderators of the intervention on sports performance.

Effect of blood flow restriction with low-load exercise on muscle damage in healthy adults: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Blood flow restriction (BFR) is a relatively new rehabilitative technique and low-load exercise combined with BFR (LL-BFR) can increase muscle strength and muscle mass. However, it is currently unknown whether LL-BFR causes muscle damage. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the effects of LL-BFR on muscle damage and provide recommendations for sports training and physical exercise.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Cochrane Library and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) with a cut-off of March 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and English-language studies were selected. Two independent assessors used the PEDro scoring scale to evaluate the methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies.

RESULTS

Of the 2935 articles identified, 15 RCTs were included in this systematic review. Two studies demonstrated that LL-BFR could induce muscle damage in healthy individuals; however, two studies presented contrasting findings in the short term. Four studies found that no muscle damage occurred after LL-BFR in the long term. The remaining seven articles showed that it was unclear if LL-BFR could cause muscle damage, regardless of whether these participants were trained or not.

CONCLUSION

Although LL-BFR may induce muscle damage within 1 week, it will help gain long-term muscle strength and muscle hypertrophy. However, the lack of sufficient evidence on the effect of LL-BFR on muscle damage in clinical practice warrants additional RCTs with large sample sizes in the future.

An Updated Panorama of Blood-Flow-Restriction Methods

BACKGROUND

Exercise with blood-flow restriction (BFR) is being increasingly used by practitioners working with athletic and clinical populations alike. Most early research combined BFR with low-load resistance training and consistently reported increased muscle size and strength without requiring the heavier loads that are traditionally used for unrestricted resistance training. However, this field has evolved with several different active and passive BFR methods emerging in recent research.

PURPOSE

This commentary aims to synthesize the evolving BFR methods for cohorts ranging from healthy athletes to clinical or load-compromised populations. In addition, real-world considerations for practitioners are highlighted, along with areas requiring further research.

CONCLUSIONS

The BFR literature now incorporates several active and passive methods, reflecting a growing implementation of BFR in sport and allied health fields. In addition to low-load resistance training, BFR is being combined with high-load resistance exercise, aerobic and anaerobic energy systems training of varying intensities, and sport-specific activities. BFR is also being applied passively in the absence of physical activity during periods of muscle disuse or rehabilitation or prior to exercise as a preconditioning or performance-enhancement technique. These various methods have been reported to improve muscular development; cardiorespiratory fitness; functional capacities; tendon, bone, and vascular adaptations; and physical and sport-specific performance and to reduce pain sensations. However, in emerging BFR fields, many unanswered questions remain to refine best practice.

Where Does Blood Flow Restriction Fit in the Toolbox of Athletic Development? A Narrative Review of the Proposed Mechanisms and Potential Applications

Blood flow-restricted exercise is currently used as a low-intensity time-efficient approach to reap many of the benefits of typical high-intensity training. Evidence continues to lend support to the notion that even highly trained individuals, such as athletes, still benefit from this mode of training. Both resistance and endurance exercise may be combined with blood flow restriction to provide a spectrum of adaptations in skeletal muscle, spanning from myofibrillar to mitochondrial adjustments. Such diverse adaptations would benefit both muscular strength and endurance qualities concurrently, which are demanded in athletic performance, most notably in team sports. Moreover, recent work indicates that when traditional high-load resistance training is supplemented with low-load, blood flow-restricted exercise, either in the same session or as a separate training block in a periodised programme, a synergistic and complementary effect on training adaptations may occur. Transient reductions in mechanical loading of tissues afforded by low-load, blood flow-restricted exercise may also serve a purpose during de-loading, tapering or rehabilitation of musculoskeletal injury. This narrative review aims to expand on the current scientific and practical understanding of how blood flow restriction methods may be applied by coaches and practitioners to enhance current athletic development models.

Influence of cuff stiffness on hemodynamics and perceived cuff pressure in the upper extremities in males and females: implications for practical blood flow restriction training

BACKGROUND

Practical blood flow restriction (pBFR) during exercise is a cost-saving alternative to traditional blood flow restriction using pneumatic cuffs, particularly when exercising in a group setting. Depending on the pBFR technique, several factors (e.g., cuff width, limb circumference) have already been shown to be of importance when applying the pBFR pressure. Given that elastic cuffs are often used for pBFR, the cuff stiffness might be an additional influencing factor. Therefore, the present study compared the acute effects of three elastic cuffs with identical width but different stiffness (high stiffness (HS), medium stiffness (MS), and low stiffness (LS)) on hemodynamic measures and perceived cuff pressure at rest.

METHODS

In a randomized, counter-balanced cross-over study, 36 young and normotensive participants completed three experimental trials. After a 10-min rest period in supine position, the cuff was loosely and proximally applied to the right upper arm. Following baseline data recording, the cuff was successively tightened in 10%-increments with respect to the limb circumference (%overlap) until arterial blood flow was occluded. At baseline and during each %overlap, systolic peak blood flow velocity of the brachial artery, rating of perceived cuff pressure, as well as muscle oxygen saturation and total hemoglobin concentration of the biceps brachii muscle were recorded.

RESULTS

The %overlap required to occlude arterial blood flow was different between the three cuffs (HS: 30.9 ± 3.8%, MS: 43.9 ± 6.1%, LS: 54.5 ± 8.3%). Furthermore, at 30% overlap, systolic peak blood flow velocity was lower when applying the HS (9.0 ± 10.9 cm∙s- 1) compared to MS (48.9 ± 21.9 cm∙s- 1) and LS cuff (62.9 ± 19.1 cm∙s- 1). Rating of perceived cuff pressure at 30% overlap was higher when using the HS (6.5 ± 1.5 arbitrary unit (a.u.)) compared to MS (5.1 ± 1.4 a.u.) and LS cuff (4.9 ± 1.5 a.u.) with no difference between the MS and LS cuff. However, muscle oxygen saturation and total hemoglobin concentration were not different between the three cuffs.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study revealed that the cuff stiffness influenced blood flow velocity and arterial occlusion pressure. Therefore, cuff stiffness seems an important factor for the application of pBFR.

Effects of Resistance Training with Blood Flow Restriction on Explosive Power of Lower Limbs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare changes in explosive power between blood flow restriction training and traditional resistance training protocols. Searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and OVID Medline were conducted for studies. Inclusion criteria were: (a) healthy people; (b) randomized controlled or controlled trials; (c) outcome measures of explosive performance (peak power, rate of force development, jump performance, sprint performance, etc.); (d) involving a comparison between blood flow restriction training and traditional resistance training. Quality assessment was conducted using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. A total of 12 studies (262 subjects) were finally included for analysis. The PEDro scale score had a median of 5 of 10 points (range: 3-6 points). Significant small to moderate improvements were observed in blood flow restriction training [jump: standard mean difference (SMD) of 0.36 (95% CI: 0.02; 0.69); sprint: SMD of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.00; 1.07); power: SMD of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.17; 1.27)] when compared to traditional resistance training. The findings indicate that blood flow restriction training is more effective in improving explosive power of lower limbs compared to traditional resistance training in healthy people. In addition, blood flow restriction with a wide cuff (≥ 10 cm) during training improved explosive power better than with a narrow cuff or during the rest interval. Blood flow restriction training is very suitable for athletes in short competitive seasons and those who are not able to tolerate high loads (i.e., rehabilitators and the elderly).

Acute and Chronic Effects of Blood Flow Restricted High-Intensity Interval Training: A Systematic Review

Background

The implementation of blood flow restriction (BFR) during exercise is becoming an increasingly useful adjunct method in both athletic and rehabilitative settings. Advantages in pairing BFR with training can be observed in two scenarios: (1) training at lower absolute intensities (e.g. walking) elicits adaptations akin to high-intensity sessions (e.g. running intervals); (2) when performing exercise at moderate to high intensities, higher physiological stimulus may be attained, leading to larger improvements in aerobic, anaerobic, and muscular parameters. The former has been well documented in recent systematic reviews, but consensus on BFR (concomitant or post-exercise) combined with high-intensity interval training (HIIT) protocols is not well established. Therefore, this systematic review evaluates the acute and chronic effects of BFR + HIIT.

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to identify relevant studies. A systematic search on 1 February 2022, was conducted on four key databases: ScienceDirect, PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus. Quality of each individual study was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Extraction of data from included studies was conducted using an adapted version of the 'Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome' (PICO) framework.

Results

A total of 208 articles were identified, 18 of which met inclusion criteria. Of the 18 BFR + HIIT studies (244 subjects), 1 reported both acute and chronic effects, 5 examined acute responses and 12 investigated chronic effects. Acutely, BFR challenges the metabolic processes (vascular and oxygenation responses) during high-intensity repeated sprint exercise—which accelerates central and peripheral neuromuscular fatigue mechanisms resulting in performance impairments. Analysis of the literature exploring the chronic effects of BFR + HIIT suggests that BFR does provide an additive physiological training stimulus to HIIT protocols, especially for measured aerobic, muscular, and, to some extent, anaerobic parameters.

Conclusion

Presently, it appears that the addition of BFR into HIIT enhances physiological improvements in aerobic, muscular, and, to some extent, anaerobic performance. However due to large variability in permutations of BFR + HIIT methodologies, it is necessary for future research to explore and recommend standardised BFR guidelines for each HIIT exercise type.

The Impacts of Combined Blood Flow Restriction Training and Betaine Supplementation on One-Leg Press Muscular Endurance, Exercise-Associated Lactate Concentrations, Serum Metabolic Biomarkers, and Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1α Gene Expression

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the impacts of a potential blood flow restriction (BFR)-betaine synergy on one-leg press performance, lactate concentrations, and exercise-associated biomarkers. Eighteen recreationally trained males (25 ± 5 y) were randomized to supplement 6 g/day of either betaine anhydrous (BET) or cellulose placebo (PLA) for 14 days. Subsequently, subjects performed four standardized sets of one-leg press and two additional sets to muscular failure on both legs (BFR [LL-BFR; 20% 1RM at 80% arterial occlusion pressure] and high-load [HL; 70% 1RM]). Toe-tip lactate concentrations were sampled before (PRE), as well as immediately (POST0), 30 min (POST30M), and 3 h (POST3H) post-exercise. Serum homocysteine (HCY), growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 concentrations were additionally assessed at PRE and POST30M. Analysis failed to detect any significant between-supplement differences for total repetitions completed. Baseline lactate changes (∆) were significantly elevated from POST0 to POST30 and from POST30 to POST3H (p < 0.05), whereby HL additionally demonstrated significantly higher ∆Lactate versus LL-BFR (p < 0.001) at POST3H. Although serum ∆GH was not significantly impacted by supplement or condition, serum ∆IGF-1 was significantly (p = 0.042) higher in BET versus PLA and serum ∆HCY was greater in HL relative to LL-BFR (p = 0.044). Although these data fail to support a BFR-betaine synergy, they otherwise support betaine’s anabolic potential.

Acute Effects of Ischemic Intra-Conditioning on 30 m Sprint Performance

The present study aimed to evaluate the effects of ischemic intra-conditioning applied during rest intervals on 30 m sprint performance. Thirty-four trained male (n = 12) and female (n = 22) track and field and rugby athletes volunteered to participate in the study (age = 19.6 ± 4 years; training experience = 5.3 ± 1.9 years). In a randomized and counterbalanced order, participants performed six sets of 30 m sprints under three different testing conditions: without ischemic intra-conditioning, and with ischemic intra-conditioning at 60% or 80% arterial occlusion pressure applied bilaterally before the first trial of the sprint and during the rest periods between all sprint trials. During experimental sessions, subjects perform 6 × 30 m sprints with a 7 min rest interval between attempts. The cuffs were applied following a 1 min rest period and lasted for 5 min before being released at the 6th minute to allow for reperfusion (1 min + 5 min ischemic intra-conditioning + 1 min reperfusion). The two-way repeated measures ANOVA did not show statistically significant condition × set interaction for time of the sprint (p = 0.06; η² = 0.05). There was also no main effect of ischemic intra-conditioning for any condition (p = 0.190; η² = 0.05). This study indicates that ischemic intra-conditioning did not enhance the performance of 30 m sprints performed by athletes. However, ischemic intra-conditioning did not decrease performance either.

Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Therapy for Muscular Strength, Hypertrophy, and Endurance in Healthy and Special Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training is an increasingly applied tool with potential benefits in muscular hypertrophy, strength, and endurance. This study investigates the effectiveness of BFR training relative to other forms of training on muscle strength, hypertrophy, and endurance.

DATA SOURCES

We performed systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed and assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 randomized controlled trials with 31 included in meta-analyses. For muscular strength comparing low-intensity BFR (LI-BFR) training with high-intensity resistance training (HIRT), the pooled mean difference (MD) for 1 repetition maximum was 5.34 kg (95% CI, 2.58-8.09; P < 0.01) favoring HIRT. When comparing LI-BFR training with HIRT for torque, the MD was 6.35 N·m (95% CI, 0.5-12.3; P = 0.04) also favoring HIRT. However, comparing LI-BFR with low-intensity resistance training (LIRT) for torque, there was a MD of 9.94 N·m (95% CI, 5.43-14.45; P < 0.01) favoring BFR training. Assessing muscle hypertrophy, the MD in cross-sectional area was 0.96 cm2 (95% CI, 0.21-1.7; P = 0.01) favoring pooled BFR training compared with nonocclusive training. Assessing endurance, V̇o2 maximum demonstrated a greater mean increase of 0.37 mL/kg/min (95% CI, -0.97 to 3.17; P = 0.64) in BFR endurance training compared with endurance training alone.

CONCLUSION

Blood flow restriction training produced increases in muscular strength, hypertrophy, and endurance. Comparing LI-BFR training with HIRT, HIRT was a significantly better training modality for increasing muscle hypertrophy and strength. However, LI-BFR was superior when compared with a similar low-intensity protocol. Blood flow restriction training is potentially beneficial to those unable to tolerate the high loads of HIRT; however, better understanding of its risk to benefit ratio is needed before clinical application.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 1.

Practical Blood Flow Restriction Training: New Methodological Directions for Practice and Research

Most studies with blood flow restriction (BFR) training have been conducted using devices capable of regulating the restriction pressure, such as pneumatic cuffs. However, this may not be a viable option for the general population who exercise in gyms, squares and sports centers. Thinking about this logic, practical blood flow restriction (pBFR) training was created in 2009, suggesting the use of elastic knee wraps as an alternative to the traditional BFR, as it is low cost, affordable and practical. However, unlike traditional BFR training which seems to present a consensus regarding the prescription of BFR pressure based on arterial occlusion pressure (AOP), studies on pBFR training have used different techniques to apply the pressure/tension exerted by the elastic wrap. Therefore, this Current Opinion article aims to critically and chronologically examine the techniques used to prescribe the pressure exerted by the elastic wrap during pBFR training. In summary, several techniques were found to apply the elastic wrap during pBFR training, using the following as criteria: application by a single researcher; stretching of the elastic (absolute and relative overlap of the elastic); the perceived tightness scale; and relative overlap of the elastic based on the circumference of the limbs. Several studies have shown that limb circumference seems to be the greatest predictor of AOP. Therefore, we reinforce that applying the pressure exerted by the elastic for pBFR training based on the circumference of the limbs is an excellent, valid and safe technique.

Blood flow restriction during training for improving the aerobic capacity and sport performance of trained athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

/Objective: Combining blood flow restriction (BFR) with endurance training is exponentially increasing although the benefits are unclear in trained athletes. We aimed to describe the effects of aerobic and/or anaerobic training programmes combined with BFR on the aerobic capacity and related sport performance of trained athletes.

METHODS

Databases used were MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, LILACS, IBECS, CINHAL, COCHRANE, SCIELO and PEDro, through October 2021. For study selection, criteria included (a) clinical trials that recruited trained healthy athletes, that (b) proposed BFR in combination with aerobic/anaerobic training programmes (≥8 sessions) and that (c) evaluated either aerobic capacity or related sport performance. For data extraction, a reviewer extracted the data, and another reviewer independently verified it. The tool RoB 2 (Risk of bias 2) was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

Ten studies met the eligibility criteria, capturing a total of 207 participants. Although it did not reveal any significant effects from training with BFR on aerobic capacity compared to the same training without BFR, effect sizes were extremely high. Subgroup analyses according to the intensity of the training programmes found similar results for low-to-moderate or high-intensity training compared to the same sessions without BFR.

CONCLUSION

Although adding BFR to training sessions always produce benefits from baseline in aerobic capacity and sport performance of trained athletes, these results are not better than those observed after the same training sessions without BFR. The reduced number of studies, small sample sizes and some concerns regarding risk of bias should be highlighted as limitations.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021248212.

Current Techniques Used for Practical Blood Flow Restriction Training: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT

Bielitzki, R, Behrendt, T, Behrens, M, and Schega, L. Current techniques used for practical blood flow restriction training: a systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 35(10): 2936-2951, 2021-The purpose of this article was to systematically review the available scientific evidence on current methods used for practical blood flow restriction (pBFR) training together with application characteristics as well as advantages and disadvantages of each technique. A literature search was conducted in different databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) for the period from January 2000 to December 2020. Inclusion criteria for this review were (a) original research involving humans, (b) the use of elastic wraps or nonpneumatic cuffs, and (c) articles written in English. Of 26 studies included and reviewed, 15 were conducted using an acute intervention (11 in the lower body and 4 in the upper body), and 11 were performed with a chronic intervention (8 in the lower body, 1 in the upper body, and 2 in both the upper and the lower body). Three pBFR techniques could be identified: (a) based on the perceptual response (perceived pressure technique), (b) based on the overlap of the cuff (absolute and relative overlap technique), and (c) based on the cuffs' maximal tensile strength (maximal cuff elasticity technique). In conclusion, the perceived pressure technique is simple, valid for the first application, and can be used independently of the cuffs' material properties, but is less reliable within a person over time. The absolute and relative overlap technique as well as the maximal cuff elasticity technique might be applied more reliably due to markings, but require a cuff with constant material properties over time.

Effects of Resting vs. Continuous Blood-Flow Restriction-Training on Strength, Fatigue Resistance, Muscle Thickness, and Perceived Discomfort

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to clarify whether blood-flow restriction during resting intervals [resting blood-flow restriction (rBFR)] is comparable to a continuous BFR (cBFR) training regarding its effects on maximum strength, hypertrophy, fatigue resistance, and perceived discomfort. Materials and Methods: Nineteen recreationally trained participants performed four sets (30-15-15-15 repetitions) with 20% 1RM on a 45° leg press twice a week for 6 weeks (cBFR, n = 10; rBFR, n = 9). Maximum strength, fatigue resistance, muscle thickness, and girth were assessed at three timepoints (pre, mid, and post). Subjective pain and perceived exertion were determined immediately after training at two timepoints (mid and post). Results: Maximum strength (p < 0.001), fatigue resistance (p < 0.001), muscle thickness (p < 0.001), and girth (p = 0.008) increased in both groups over time with no differences between groups (p > 0.05). During the intervention, the rBFR group exposed significantly lower perceived pain and exertion values compared to cBFR (p < 0.05). Discussion: Resting blood-flow restriction training led to similar gains in strength, fatigue resistance, and muscle hypertrophy as cBFR training while provoking less discomfort and perceived exertion in participants. In summary, rBFR training could provide a meaningful alternative to cBFR as this study showed similar functional and structural changes as well as less discomfort.

Isometric blood flow restriction exercise: acute physiological and neuromuscular responses

Background

Numerous studies have demonstrated that the addition of blood flow restriction (BFR) to low-load (LL) resistance exercise leads to elevated levels of muscle hypertrophy and strength gains. In terms of main underlying mechanisms, metabolic accumulation and increased neuromuscular adaptations seem to play a primary role. However, this evidence is largely based on dynamic exercise conditions. Therefore, the main objective was to investigate the acute physiological adaptations following isometric LL-BFR exercise.

Methods

Fifteen males participated in this cross-over trial and completed the following sessions in a random and counterbalanced order: isometric LL-BFR exercise (20% maximum voluntary contraction, MVC) and load matched LL exercise without BFR. Lactate levels, muscle activation as well as muscle swelling were recorded during the whole exercise and until 15 min post completion. Additionally, changes in maximal voluntary torque and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were monitored.

Results

During exercise, EMG amplitudes (72.5 ± 12.7% vs. 46.3 ± 6.7% of maximal EMG activity), muscle swelling and RPE were significantly higher during LL-BFR compared to LL (p < 0.05). Lactate levels did not show significant group differences during exercise but revealed higher increases 15 min after completion in the LL-BFR condition (LL-BFR: + 69%, LL: + 22%) (p < 0.05). Additionally, MVC torque significantly decreased immediately post exercise only in LL-BFR (~ − 11%) (p < 0.05) but recovered after 15 min.

Conclusions

The present results demonstrate that isometric LL-BFR causes increased metabolic, neuromuscular as well as perceptual responses compared to LL alone. These adaptations are similar to dynamic exercise and therefore LL-BFR represents a valuable type of exercise where large joint movements are contraindicated (e.g. rehabilitation after orthopedic injuries).

Local and Systemic Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Therapy in an Animal Model

BACKGROUND

Blood flow restriction therapy (BFRT) has been increasingly applied to improve athletic performance and injury recovery. Validation of BFRT has lagged behind commercialization, and currently the mechanism by which this therapy acts is unknown. BFRT is one type of ischemic therapy, which involves exercising with blood flow restriction. Repetitive restriction of muscle blood flow (RRMBF) is another ischemic therapy type, which does not include exercise.

HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE

The purpose was to develop a rat model of ischemic therapy, characterize changes to muscle contractility, and evaluate local and systemic biochemical and histologic responses of 2 ischemic therapy types. We hypothesized that ischemic therapy would improve muscle mass and strength as compared with the control group.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Four groups of 10 Sprague-Dawley rats were established: control, stimulation, RRMBF, and BFRT. One hindlimb of each subject underwent 8 treatment sessions over 4 weeks. To simulate exercise, the stimulation group underwent peroneal nerve stimulation for 2 minutes. The RRMBF group used a pneumatic cuff inflated to 100 mm Hg with a 48-minute protocol. The BFRT group involved 100-mm Hg pneumatic cuff inflation and peroneal nerve stimulation for a 5-minute protocol. Four methods of evaluation were performed: in vivo contractility testing, histology, immunohistochemistry, and ELISA. Analysis of variance with post hoc Tukey test and linear mixed effects modeling were used to compare the treatment groups.

RESULTS

There was no difference in muscle mass among groups (P = .40) or between hindlimbs (P = .73). In vivo contractility testing showed no difference in maximum contractile force among groups (P = .64) or between hindlimbs (P = .30). On histology, myocyte cross-sectional area was not different among groups (P = .55) or between hindlimbs (P = .44). Pax7 immunohistochemistry demonstrated no difference in muscle satellite cell density among groups (P = .06) or between hindlimbs (P = .046). ELISA demonstrated the RRMBF group as eliciting elevated GH levels as compared with the other groups (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Ischemic therapy did not induce gains in muscle mass, contractility strength, fiber cross-sectional area, or satellite cell density locally or systemically in this model, although the RRMBF group did have elevated GH levels on ELISA.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This animal model does not support ischemic therapy as a method to improve muscle mass, function, or satellite cell density.

Ischemic Therapy in Musculoskeletal Medicine

BACKGROUND

The competitive environment of athletics has promoted the exploration of any technology application that may offer an edge with performance and recovery from injury. Ischemic therapy is one such technology that has rapidly been incorporated into training rooms and physical therapy clinics worldwide. This therapy modality is reported to increase an athlete's ability to improve muscle mass, strength, and endurance.

PURPOSE

To provide the sports medicine physician with an understanding of the current state of ischemic therapy technology, including treatment specifications, known physiological effects, hypothesized mechanisms, biochemical effects, athletic applications, medical applications, animal models, and future research recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN

Literature review.

METHODS

A computer-based search of the PubMed database was used to perform a comprehensive literature review on musculoskeletal ischemic therapy.

RESULTS

The current research on ischemic therapy is largely composed of case series with varying equipment, methods, and therapy specifications. The publication of case series has value in identifying this technology for future research, but the results of these studies should not be justification for application to athletes without validation of safety and effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

To date, ischemic therapy remains unvalidated, and the mechanism by which it improves muscle performance is not clear.

Does Acute Blood Flow Restriction with Pneumatic and Non-Pneumatic Non-Elastic Cuffs Promote Similar Responses in Blood Lactate, Growth Hormone, and Peptide Hormone?

Blood flow restriction (BFR) can be used during resistance training (RT) through pressure application with pneumatic (pressurized) cuffs (PC) or non-pneumatic (practical) cuffs (NPC). However, PC are expensive and difficult to use in the gym environment compared to NPC. The main aim was to compare, correlate, and verify the hormonal and metabolic responses between PC and NPC during a low-load BFR during RT of the upper-body. The secondary aim was to compare blood lactate (BLa) concentration between pre- and post-exercise (2-min into recovery), as well as growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) concentration before, 10-min, and 15-min post exercise. Sixteen trained men randomly and alternately completed two experimental RT protocols of the upper-body : A) RT with BFR at 20% 1RM using PC (RT-BFR-PC) and (B) RT with BFR at 20% 1RM using NPC (RT-BFR-NPC) in the bench press, wide-grip lat pulldown, shoulder press, triceps pushdown, and biceps curl exercises. There was no significant difference in BLa 2-min post exercise (p=0.524), GH 10-min (p=0.843) and 15-min post exercise (p=0.672), and IGF-1 10-min (p=0.298) and 15-min post exercise (p=0.201) between RT-BFR-PC and RT-BFR-NPC. In addition, there was a moderate correlation, satisfactory ICCs, and agreement between both protocols in metabolic and hormonal responses. The experimental sessions promoted significant increases in GH and BLa, but not in IGF-1 (p<0.05). The absence of a significant difference between RT-BFR-PC and RT-BFR-NPC in metabolic and hormonal responses highlight the applicability of NPC as a low-cost and easy-to-use tool for BFR upper-body RT.

Low intensity rowing with blood flow restriction over 5 weeks increases V̇O2max in elite rowers: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The present randomized controlled intervention study examined the effects of practical blood flow restriction (pBFR) on maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O₂max) during low intensity rowing.

DESIGN

Thirty-one elite rowers were either assigned to the intervention (INT) or control (CON) group, using the minimization method (Strata: Gender, Age, Height, V̇O₂max).

METHOD

While INT (n=16; 4 female, 12 male, 21.9±3.2 years, 180.4±8.7cm, 73.6±10.9kg, V̇O₂max: 63.0±7.9ml/min/kg) used pBFR during boat- and indoor-rowing training, CON (n=15, 4 female, 11 male, 21.7±3.7 years, 180.7±8.1cm, 72.5±12.1kg, V̇O₂max: 63.2±8.5ml/min/kg) completed the identical training without pBFR. pBFR of the lower limb was applied via customized elastic wraps. Training took place three times a week over 5 weeks (accumulated net pBFR: 60min/week; occlusion per session: 2-times 10min/session) and was used exclusively at low intensities (<2mmol/L). A spiroergometric ramp test (V̇O₂max; 30-40W/min increase) on rowing-ergometer and one-repetition maximum test of the squat exercise (SQ1RM) was employed to assess endurance and strength capacity.

RESULTS

Significant group×time interactions (η_p²=0.26) in favor of INT were found for V̇O₂max (+9.1±6.2%, Effect Size=1.3) compared to CON (+2.5±6.1%, ES=0.3). SQ1RM (η_p²=0.01) was not affected by the pBFR intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that 15 sessions of pBFR application with a cumulative total pBFR load of 5h over a 5 weeks macrocycle remarkably increased V̇O₂max. Thus, pBFR might serve as a promising means to improve aerobic capacity in highly trained elite rowers.

Acute Responses to On-Court Repeated-Sprint Training Performed With Blood Flow Restriction Versus Systemic Hypoxia in Elite Badminton Athletes

PURPOSE

Repeated-sprint training (RS) is commonly conducted in normoxia, but its completion with localized (blood-flow restriction [BFR]) or systemic hypoxia has been proven effective for performance enhancement. Yet, few studies have applied these types of RS sessions in racket sports. The authors aimed to determine the acute responses to these types of training in elite badminton players.

METHODS

Eight male elite badminton players participated in this randomized crossover study. They performed 3 on-court RS sessions, each consisting of 3 sets of 10 repetitions of 10-s badminton-specific movements in normoxia (RSN), systemic normobaric hypoxia (RSH, FiO2 = 14%), or with BFR (RS-BFR, 40% arterial occlusion pressure). Performance, perceptual (ie, rating of perceived exertion), and physiological (ie, pulse saturation, muscle oxygenation, blood lactate, creatine kinase, heart-rate variability) responses were measured after each set and up to 48 h postsession.

RESULTS

RS-BFR induced a greater performance impairment (lower distance and accelerations) and a higher local perceived exertion in the legs than RSN and RSH (P < .05), whereas greater overall fatigue was reported with RSH (P < .05). RSH induced a lower saturation (P < .001), but no differences were observed in muscle oxygenation between conditions. No differences in creatine kinase or heart-rate variability were observed at any time point (from baseline up to 48 h after the session).

CONCLUSIONS

RS-BFR-and, to a lower extent, RSH-resulted in impaired performance and a higher perceived strain than RSN. However, these 2 hypoxic methods do not seem to induce a long-lasting (post 24-48 h) physiological stress in elite badminton players.

A method to standardize the blood flow restriction pressure by an elastic cuff

Blood flow restriction training using a practical (non-pneumatic) elastic cuff has recently increased in popularity. However, a criticism of this method is that the pressure applied and the amount of blood flow restriction induced is unknown. The aim was to quantify blood flow following the application of an elastic cuff and compare that to what is observed using a more traditional pressurized nylon cuff. Thirty-five young participants (16 men and 19 women) visited the laboratory once for testing. In a randomized order (one condition per arm), an elastic cuff (5 cm wide) was applied to one arm and blood flow was measured following the cuff being pulled to two distinct lengths; 10% and 20% of the resting length based on arm circumference. The other arm would follow a similar protocol but use a pressurized nylon cuff (5 cm wide) and be inflated to 40% and 80% of the individuals resting arterial occlusion pressure. There was a main effect of pressure for blood flow with it decreasing in a pressure-dependent manner (High < Low, P < 0.001). The mean difference (95% CI) in blood flow between cuffs was -5.9 (-18.9, 7.0) % for the lower pressure and -4.0 (-13.2, 5.1) % for the higher pressure. When the relative changes for each cuff were separated by sex, there were no differences in the changes from Pre (P ≥ 0.509). The application of a pressure relative to the initial belt length, which is largely dependent upon arm circumference, appears to provide one method to standardize the practical blood flow restriction pressure for future research.

The Role of Blood Flow Restriction Therapy Following Knee Surgery: Expert Opinion

Blood flow restriction (BFR) therapy is becoming increasingly popular in musculoskeletal injury rehabilitation. In particular, this form of therapy is being utilized more often in the postoperative setting following knee surgery, including anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. BFR therapy provides patients and clinicians an alternative treatment option to standard muscle strengthening and hypertrophy guidelines in the setting of postoperative pain, weakness, and postoperative activity restrictions that contribute to muscle atrophy. The ability to complete exercise in a low load environment and achieve similar physiological adaptations as high-intensity strength training makes this modality appealing. With poor patient-related outcomes associated with continued muscle atrophy, pain, and muscle weakness, some researchers have investigated BFR training postoperatively following arthroscopic knee surgery with promising results. However, owing to the current paucity of research studies, inconsistency among reported protocols, and mixed results, it may be some time before a mass adoption of BFR therapy is made into the world of orthopaedic rehabilitation. Although the current data is inconclusive, we choose to utilize BFR in postoperative knee patients, regardless of weight-bearing status, for whom maintenance of existing muscle mass or improvement of decreased postoperative strength levels is important. Therefore, the purpose of this expert opinion is to review the background of BFR, describe the clinical evidence of BFR following knee surgery, and report the authors' current recommendations for application of BFR postoperatively.