Blood Flow Restriction Does Not Promote Additional Effects on Muscle Adaptations When Combined With High-Load Resistance Training Regardless of Blood Flow Restriction Protocol

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.

Blood flow restriction during high load bench press does not increase bar velocity or cause physiological changes in non-occluded agonist muscles

PURPOSE

Blood blow restriction (BFR) can increase peak velocity and power during high load resistance training. However, previous research primarily utilized high occlusion pressures (i.e., greater than 80% arterial occlusion pressure (AOP)), and rarely measured the physiological response during or after the bench press stimuli. The aim of this study was to investigate the application of 50%AOP during acute high load bench press exercise on barbell power, velocity, and the physiological responses to this stimulus.

METHODS

Resistance trained males (n = 12, 26.2 ± 6.6 yrs., 84.0 ± 10.8 kg, 176.3 ± 10.4 cm) completed a maximum strength test followed by two experimental sessions which consisted of four sets of 4 reps of the barbell bench press at 75%1RM, with or without BFR applied to both arms at 50% AOP. Significance was set to p ≤ 0.05. A series of two-way repeated measures ANOVAs with Bonferroni post hoc corrections tested for potential changes in bar velocity, power, blood lactate, and muscle thickness and activation of the anterior deltoid and pectoralis major.

RESULTS

There were no main effects for the interaction terms "Condition×Set" or "Condition×Time," nor for "Condition" for any variables (all p > 0.05). There was a "Time" effect for blood lactate (p < 0.001) with lactate increasing from pre- to postexercise, and a main effects for "Set" for mean (p = 0.016) and peak velocity (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in the change in velocity, or physiological responses during high load bench press with or without BFR at 50%AOP. While promising, use of BFR for upper body power may require pressures >50%AOP.

Credibility of Blood Flow Restriction Training in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

The effectiveness and practicality of blood flow restriction training (BFRT) as a nonsurgical intervention for treating patients with knee injuries are uncertain because of the small size of BFRT trials and inconsistent results.

Purpose

To conduct a meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of BFRT versus traditional resistance training in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) in terms of pain, muscle strength, functional performance, self-reported function, muscle size, and adverse events during exercise.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence: 1.

Methods

Under the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we searched the Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and other databases for randomized controlled trials of BFRT interventions in patients with knee OA. Methodological and quality evaluations, heterogeneity analysis, and subgroup analysis of the included studies were conducted, and effect sizes were evaluated using mean differences or standardized mean differences (SMDs). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were used to explore the sources of heterogeneity.

Results

Of 2826 initial studies, 6 studies (N = 228 patients) were included. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that compared with resistance training, BFRT did not significantly affect pain relief (SMD, -0.02 [95% CI, -0.30 to 0.26]; P = .88), muscle strength (SMD, 0.32 [95% CI, -0.33 to 0.96]; P = .33), functional performance (SMD, 0.25 [95% CI, -0.29 to 0.80]; P = .36), or self-reported function (SMD, -0.252 [95% CI, -0.88 to 0.45]; P = .52). However, BFRT reduced the risk of adverse events (risk ratio, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.20 to 1.01]; P = .05). Subgroup analysis revealed that compared with low-load resistance training, BFRT significantly increased muscle size (SMD, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.09 to 1.68]; P = .02). The quality-of-evidence assessment indicated that the evidence level for the above outcomes was low and that the strength of the recommendation was weak.

Conclusion

The results of our meta-analysis indicated that compared with resistance training, BFRT did not significantly improve symptom outcomes in patients with knee OA. It is important to acknowledge that the findings were limited by the small number of studies and sample sizes that were included.

Acute Responses to Different Velocity-Loss Thresholds During Squat Training With and Without Blood-Flow Restriction

PURPOSE

To compare the acute effects on mechanical, metabolic, neuromuscular, and muscle contractile responses to different velocity-loss (VL) thresholds (20% and 40%) under distinct blood-flow conditions (free [FF] vs restricted [BFR]) in full squat (SQ).

METHODS

Twenty strength-trained men performed 4 SQ protocols with 60% 1-repetition maximum that differed in the VL within the set and in the blood-flow condition (FF20: FF with 20% VL; FF40: FF with 40% VL; BFR20: BFR with 20% VL; and BFR40: BFR with 40% VL). The level of BFR was 50% of the arterial occlusion pressure. Before and after the SQ protocols, the following tests were performed: (1) tensiomyography, (2) blood lactate, (3) countermovement jump, (4) maximal voluntary isometric SQ contraction, and (5) performance with the load that elicited a 1 m·s-1 at baseline measurements in SQ.

RESULTS

No "BFR × VL" interactions were observed. BFR protocols resulted in fewer repetitions and lower increases in lactate concentration than FF protocols. The 40% VL protocols completed more repetitions but resulted in lower mechanical performance and electromyography median frequency during the exercise than the 20% VL protocols. At postexercise, the 40% VL protocols also experienced greater blood lactate concentrations, higher alterations in tensiomyography-derived variables, and accentuated impairments in SQ and countermovement-jump performances. The 20% VL protocols showed an increased electromyography median frequency at postexercise maximal voluntary isometric contraction.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite BFR-accelerated fatigue development during exercise, a given VL magnitude induced similar impairments in the distinct performance indicators assessed, regardless of the blood-flow condition.

Individual muscle hypertrophy in high-load resistance training with and without blood flow restriction: A near-infrared spectroscopy approach

We aimed to compare individual hypertrophic responses to high-load resistance training (HL-RT) or high-load with blood flow restriction (HL-BFR). Furthermore, we investigated whether greater responsiveness to one of the protocols could be explained by acute changes in blood deoxyhemoglobin concentration (HHb) and total hemoglobin concentration (tHb) (proxy markers of metabolic stress). Ten untrained participants had their legs randomized into both HL-RT and HL-BFR and underwent 10 weeks of training. Muscle cross-sectional area (mCSA) was measured at baseline and post training, while HHb and tHb during the final session. Using a threshold of 2 × typical errors (3.24%) to compare protocols, five participants showed greater mCSA increases after HL-RT (16.44 ± 7.90%) compared to HL-BFR (10.74 ± 7.12%, p = 0.0054) and five did not respond better to HL-RT (8.95 ± 10.83%) compared to HL-BFR (13.33 ± 8.59%) (p = 0.3105). Additionally, HL-RT induced lower HHb (5855.78 ± 12905.99; p = 0.0101) and tHb (-43169.70 ± 37793.17; p = 0.0030) AUC values compared to HL-BFR (HHb: 39254.80 ± 27020.15; tHb: 46309.40 ± 31613.97). In conclusion, despite the higher levels of metabolic stress markers, most participants did not present greater muscle hypertrophy by combining blood flow restriction with HL-RT.

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.

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.

Effect of Isokinetic Training with Blood Flow Restriction During Rest Interval Versus Exercise on Muscle Strength, Hypertrophy, and Perception: A Pilot Study

Objectives

This study aimed to determine the effects of high-intensity isokinetic training with blood flow restriction during rest interval between set (rBFR) versus during exercise (eBFR) on muscle hypertrophy and increasing muscle strength and determine whether BFR-induced exercise pain is suppressed by rBFR.

Materials and Methods

Fourteen arms (7 participants) were recruited for the study. We conducted the following interventions for each arm: eBFR (n=4), rBFR (n=5), and exercise only (CON, n=5). The participants performed elbow flexion training with a BIODEX device twice weekly for 8 weeks. This study training consisted of total four sets; each was performed until <50% peak torque was achieved twice consecutively. BFR pressure was set at 120 mmHg. Elbow flexor peak torque during concentric contraction (CC), isometric contraction (IM), and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) were measured before and after the intervention. Numerical rating scale scores used to assess pain during exercise were determined during training.

Results

Peak torque at the CC increased in the rBFR (p<0.05) and IM increased in the rBFR and CON (p<0.05), while CSA increased in the rBFR and CON (p<0.001). The pain during exercise was severe in the eBFR and moderate in the rBFR and CON.

Conclusions

This study's showed that high-intensity isokinetic training with rBFR did not have a synergistic effect on increasing muscle strength and muscle size. Additionally, high-intensity isokinetic training with BFR when it may be best not to perform it during exercise, because it was induces severe pain and may inhibit increases in muscle strength.

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.

Acute effect of low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction on oxidative stress biomarkers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this review was to analyze the acute effects of low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (LLE-BFR) on oxidative stress markers in healthy individuals in comparison with LLE or high-load resistance exercise (HLRE) without BFR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. These searches were performed in CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL and Virtual Health Library- VHL, which includes Lilacs, Medline and SciELO. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed through the PEDro scale and GRADE system, respectively.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized clinical trials were included in this review (total n = 158 subjects). Results showed lower post-exercise damage to lipids (SMD = -0.95 CI 95%: -1.49 to -0. 40, I2 = 0%, p = 0.0007), proteins (SMD = -1.39 CI 95%: -2.11 to -0.68, I2 = 51%, p = 0.0001) and redox imbalance (SMD = -0.96 CI 95%: -1.65 to -0.28, I2 = 0%, p = 0.006) in favor of LLRE-BFR compared to HLRE. HLRE presents higher post-exercise superoxide dismutase activity but in the other biomarkers and time points, no significant differences between conditions were observed. For LLRE-BFR and LLRE, we found no difference between the comparisons performed at any time point.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence from randomized trials, providing very low or low certainty of evidence, this review demonstrates that LLRE-BFR promotes less oxidative stress when compared to HLRE but no difference in levels of oxidative damage biomarkers and endogenous antioxidants between LLRE.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Register number: PROSPERO number: CRD42020183204.

Effect of low-intensity exercise with blood flow restriction during rest intervals on muscle function and perception

PURPOSE

We assessed the effects of low-intensity exercise with blood flow restriction (BFR) during rest intervals on recovery of muscle function and pain during exercise and rest intervals.

METHODS

Participants were 10 males, and study arms of the participants were randomly assigned into three conditions; low-intensity exercise with BFR during rest intervals (rBFR), low-intensity exercise with BFR during exercise (eBFR) and low-intensity exercise only (EO). The exercise task was elbow flexion until repetition failure at 30% of 1 RM, and cuff pressure was 120 mmHg. The maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) and the muscle endurance (ME) were measured pre, post, 1 h, 24 h and 48 h after the exercise. Pain during exercise and rest intervals were evaluated using Numerical Rating Scale.

RESULTS

MVIC and ME significantly decreased after exercise in all conditions. Pain during exercise was lower in rBFR (4.2 ± 2.9) (p = 0.007) and EO (4.4 ± 2.7) (p = 0.014) conditions compared to eBFR condition (6.7 ± 1.7), but the pain during rest intervals was more intense in rBFR condition (5.2 ± 1.6) compared to eBFR (1.5 ± 1.4) and EO (1.7 ± 1.2) conditions (all: p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

We discovered that recovery of muscle function was the same as BFR during rest intervals and BFR during exercise. Also, our results suggested that BFR itself may cause the perception of pain. Future studies are thus required to investigate the optimal dosage focusing on the pressure volume and intensity used in BFR during intervals. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.