Comparing the acute responses between a manual and automated blood flow restriction system

The purpose of this study was to compare acute responses between manual and automated blood flow restriction (BFR) systems.

Methods

A total of 33 individuals completed this study. On visit 1, arterial occlusion pressure (AOP, mm Hg), cardiovascular responses, and discomfort (RPE-D) were measured with each BFR system at rest. On visit 2, unilateral bicep curls were completed [30% one-repetition maximum; 50% AOP] with one system per arm. Muscle thickness (MT, cm) and maximal force (N) were assessed before (pre), immediately (post-0), 5 min (post-5), and 10 min (post-10) post-exercise. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE-E) and ratings of perceived discomfort (RPE-D) were assessed throughout the exercise. AOP and repetitions were compared with Bayesian paired t-tests. Other outcomes were compared with Bayesian RMANOVAs. BF10 represents the likelihood of the best model vs. the null. The results are presented as mean ± SD.

Results

Supine cardiovascular responses and RPE-D were similar for manual and automated (all BF10 ≤ 0.2). Supine AOP for manual (157 ± 20) was higher than that of automated (142 ± 17; BF10 = 44496.0), but similar while standing (manual: 141 ± 17; automated: 141 ± 22; BF10 = 0.2). MT (time, BF10 = 6.047e + 40) increased from Pre (3.9 ± 0.7) to Post-0 (4.4 ± 0.8; BF10 = 2.969e + 28), with Post-0 higher than Post-5 (4.3 ± 0.8) and Post-10 (4.3 ± 0.8; both BF10 ≥ 275.2). Force (time, BF10 = 1.246e + 29) decreased from Pre (234.5 ± 79.2) to Post-0 (149.8 ± 52.3; BF10 = 2.720e + 22) and increased from Post-0 to Post-5 (193.3 ± 72.7; BF10 = 1.744e + 13), with Post-5 to Post-10 (194.0 ± 70.6; BF10 = 0.2) being similar. RPE-E increased over sets. RPE-D was lower for manual than automated. Repetitions per set were higher for manual (Set 1: 37 ± 18; Set 4: 9 ± 5) than automated (Set 1: 30 ± 7; Set 4: 7 ± 3; all BF10 ≥ 9.7).

Conclusion

Under the same relative pressure, responses are mostly similar between BFR systems, although a manual system led to lower exercise discomfort and more repetitions.

No Differences in Exercise Performance, Perceptual Response, or Safety Were Observed Among 3 Blood Flow Restriction Devices

Purpose

To compare 3 separate blood flow restriction (BFR) systems in their capacity to reduce repetitions to failure, impact perceptual responses, and cause adverse events during a low-load free-flow exercise.

Methods

The study included healthy subjects aged 18 years or older who presented to an ambulatory-care sports medicine clinic. On day 1, participants' demographic characteristics and anthropomorphic measurements were recorded. Each participant performed dumbbell biceps curl repetitions to failure using 20% of his or her 1-repetition maximum weight with each arm. Participants were exposed to 3 different tourniquet systems for familiarization. On day 2, each participant's arm was randomized to a cuff system, and the participant performed 2 sets of biceps curl repetitions to failure with the cuff inflated. Repetitions to failure, rating of perceived effort (RPE), rating of perceived discomfort, and pulse oxygenation levels were recorded after each set. On day 3, participants completed a survey of their perceived delayed-onset muscle soreness.

Results

The final analysis was performed on 42 arms, with 14 limbs per system. The study population had a mean age of 28.7 ± 2.4 years and a mean body mass index of 24.9 ± 4.3. All 3 systems successfully reduced repetitions to failure compared with unrestricted low-load exercise from baseline to BFR set 1 and from baseline to BFR set 2. There were no significant between-group differences among BFR systems regarding the number of repetitions to failure performed at baseline versus BFR set 1 or BFR set 2. The Delfi Personalized Tourniquet System (PTS) cohort had the greatest reductions in repetitions to failure from BFR set 1 to BFR set 2 (P = .002) and reported the highest RPE after set 2 (P = .025).

Conclusions

The Delfi PTS, SmartCuffs Pro, and BStrong BFR systems were each safe and were able to significantly reduce repetitions to failure compared with a low-load free-flow condition when used in a BFR exercise protocol. The Delfi PTS system may produce a higher RPE with prolonged use in comparison to the other systems.

Level of Evidence

Level II, prospective cohort study.

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.

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.

Differences in the limb blood flow between two types of blood flow restriction cuffs: A pilot study

Introduction: The determination of the optimal occlusion level is a key parameter in blood flow restriction (BFR). This study aimed to compare the effects of elastic (BStrong) vs. nylon (Hokanson) BFR cuffs on blood flow in the lower and upper limbs.

Methods: Eleven healthy participants undertook several BFR sessions with 2 different cuffs of similar width on their lower and upper limbs at different pressures [200, 250, 300, 350, and 400 mmHg for BStrong and 0, 40, and 60% of the arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) for Hokanson]. Doppler ultrasound recorded blood flows through the brachial and femoral artery at rest.

Results: With BStrong, only 350 and 400 mmHg pressures were significantly different from resting values (0% AOP). With Hokanson, both 40% and 60% of the AOP were significantly different from resting values (p < 0.05).

Discussion: While both cuffs elicited BFR, they failed to accurately modulate blood flow. Hokanson is appropriate for research settings while BStrong appears to be a convenient tool for practitioners due to its safety (i.e., the impossibility of completely occluding arteries) and the possibility of exercising freely detached from the pump.

Effect of Leg Half-Squat Training With Blood Flow Restriction Under Different External Loads on Strength and Vertical Jumping Performance in Well-Trained Volleyball Players

Purpose

To examine the effect of blood flow restriction resistance training under different external loads on the muscle strength and vertical jumping performance in volleyball players.

Methods

18 well-trained collegiate male volleyball players were randomly divided into 3 groups: high-load resistance training group (HL-RT, 70% 1RM, n = 6), low-load blood flow restriction resistance training group (LL-BFR-RT, 30% 1RM, 50% arterial occlusion, n = 6), and high-load blood flow restriction resistance training group (HL-BFR-RT, 70% 1RM, 50% arterial occlusion, n = 6). Participants performed leg half-squat exercise 3 times per week for 8 weeks. Measurements of Isokinetic peak torque of knee extension and flexion, 1RM leg half-squat, squat jump, and 3 footed take-off were obtained before and after training. A two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to examine differences among the 3 groups and between the 2 testing time (pre-test vs post-test).

Results

(1) The HL-RT group was significantly greater in muscle strength than that in the LL-BFR-RT group (P < .05), but no improvement in vertical jumping performance (P >.05). (2) Improvement in muscle strength and vertical jumping performance was significantly greater in the HL-BFR-RT group than that in the LL-BFR-RT group (P <.05). (3) The HL-BFR-RT group had greater but not significant improvement in muscle strength and vertical jumping performance than that in the HL-RT group.

Conclusions

Although increases in muscle strength were observed between training groups, HL-BFR-RT increased not only muscle strength but vertical jumping performance to a greater extent compared to LL-BFR-RT and HL-RT.

Tissue Flossing Around the Thigh Does Not Provide Acute Enhancement of Neuromuscular Function

Nowadays, various methods are used for acute performance enhancement. The most recent of these is tissue flossing, which is becoming increasingly popular for both performance enhancement and rehabilitation. However, the effects of flossing on athletic performance have not been clearly demonstrated, which could be due to differences in the methodology used. In particular, the rest periods between the end of the preconditioning activity and the performance of the criterion task or assessment tools varied considerably in the published literature. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the effects of applying tissue flossing to the thigh on bilateral countermovement jump performance and contractile properties of vastus lateralis (VL) muscle. Nineteen recreational athletes (11 males; aged 23.1 ± 2.7 years) were randomly assigned to days of flossing application (3 sets for 2 min of flossing with 2 min rest between sets) with preset experimental pressure (EXP = 95 ± 17.4 mmHg) or control condition (CON = 18.9 ± 3.5 mmHg). The first part of the measurements was performed before and after warm-up consisting of 5 min of cycling followed by dynamic stretching and specific jumping exercises, while the second part consisted of six measurement points after flossing application (0.5, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 min). The warm-up improved muscle response time (VL = -5%), contraction time (VL = -3.6%) muscle stiffness (VL = 17.5%), contraction velocity (VL = 23.5%), jump height (13.9%) and average power (10.5%). On the contrary, sustain time, half-relaxation time and take-off velocity stayed unaltered. Flossing, however, showed negative effects for muscle response time (F = 18.547, p < 0.001), contraction time (F = 14.899, p < 0.001), muscle stiffness (F = 8.365, p < 0.001), contraction velocity (F = 11.180, p < 0.001), jump height (F = 14.888, p < 0.001) and average power (F = 13.488, p < 0.001), whereas sustain time, half-relaxation time and take-off velocity were unaffected until the end of the study protocol regardless of condition assigned and/or time points of the assessment. It was found that the warm-up routine potentiated neuromuscular function, whereas the flossing protocol used in the current study resulted in fatigue rather than potentiation. Therefore, future studies aimed to investigate the dose-response relationship of different configurations of preconditioning activities on neuromuscular function are warranted.

The Evolution of Blood Flow Restricted Exercise

The use of blood flow restricted (BFR) exercise has become an accepted alternative approach to improve skeletal muscle mass and function and improve cardiovascular function in individuals that are not able to or do not wish to use traditional exercise protocols that rely on heavy loads and high training volumes. BFR exercise involves the reduction of blood flow to working skeletal muscle by applying a flexible cuff to the most proximal portions of a person’s arms or legs that results in decreased arterial flow to the exercising muscle and occluded venous return back to the central circulation. Safety concerns, especially related to the cardiovascular system, have not been consistently reported with a few exceptions; however, most researchers agree that BFR exercise can be a relatively safe technique for most people that are free from serious cardiovascular disease, as well as those with coronary artery disease, and also for people suffering from chronic conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, and osteoarthritis. Potential mechanisms to explain the benefits of BFR exercise are still mostly speculative and may require more invasive studies or the use of animal models to fully explore mechanisms of adaptation. The setting of absolute resistive pressures has evolved, from being based on an individual’s systolic blood pressure to a relative measure that is based on various percentages of the pressures needed to totally occlude blood flow in the exercising limb. However, since several other issues remain unresolved, such as the actual external loads used in combination with BFR, the type of cuff used to induce the blood flow restriction, and whether the restriction is continuous or intermittent, this paper will attempt to address these additional concerns.

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.

Rating of Perceived Effort: Methodological Concerns and Future Directions

Rating of perceived effort (RPE) scales are the most frequently used single-item scales in exercise science. They offer an easy and useful way to monitor and prescribe exercise intensity. However, RPE scales suffer from methodological limitations stemming from multiple perceived effort definitions and measurement strategies. In the present review, we attend these issues by covering (1) two popular perceived effort definitions, (2) the terms included within these definitions and the reasons they can impede validity, (3) the problems associated with using different effort scales and instructions, and (4) measuring perceived effort from specific body parts and the body as a whole. We pose that the large number of interactions between definitions, scales, instructions and applications strategies, threatens measurement validity of RPE. We suggest two strategies to overcome these limitations: (1) to reinforce consistency by narrowing the number of definitions of perceived effort, the number of terms included within them, and the number of scales and instructions used. (2) Rather than measuring solely RPE as commonly done, exercise sciences will benefit from incorporating other single-item scales that measure affect, fatigue and discomfort, among others. By following these two recommendations, we expect the field will increase measurement validity and become more comprehensive.

Perceptual responses: Clinical versus practical blood flow restriction resistance exercise

The purpose of the current investigation was to compare the acute perceptual responses during low-load resistance exercise (RE) with clinical blood flow restriction (cBFR-RE) and practical blood flow restriction (pBFR-RE), and during conventional low- (LL-RE) and high-load resistance exercise (HL-RE), to determine if these responses differed between young males and females. Twenty-nine participants (14 males: 23.6±2.7years, 25.3±3.1kg/m² and 15 females: 20.3±1.6years, 23.4±1.9kg/m²) completed the following exercise conditions in a randomized design: 1) cBFR-RE, 2) pBFR-RE, 3) HL-RE, and 4) LL-RE. Low-load conditions consisted of 30-15-15-15 repetitions of two-leg press (LP) and knee extension (KE) exercises with 30% one-repetition maximum (1-RM), and HL-RE consisted of 3 sets of 10 repetitions at 80% 1-RM, all with 60s rest intervals. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and discomfort were assessed before exercise and immediately following each set. RPE was significantly higher in HL-RE compared to all low-load conditions for both exercises after each set (all p<0.05). cBFR-RE resulted in significantly greater RPE than pBFR-RE and LL-RE for both exercises for sets 1-4 for LP and sets 2-3 for KE (all p<0.05). Levels of discomfort were similar between cBFR-RE and HL-RE, which tended to be significantly higher than pBFR-RE and LL-RE (p<0.05). Men reported significantly greater RPE than women following sets 2-4 during KE with cBFR-RE and sets 2 and 3 during KE for HL-RE (all p<0.05). Males also reported significantly greater discomfort than women following sets 2-4 for KE LL-RE (p<0.05). Altogether, these data suggest that pBFR-RE may provide a more favorable BFR condition based on perceptual responses and that perceptual responses may differ between sexes across varying resistance exercise conditions.

The Safety of Blood Flow Restriction Training as a Therapeutic Intervention for Patients With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of blood flow restriction training (BFRT) as compared with other forms of training, such as resistance training, has been evaluated in the literature in clinical and nonclinical populations. However, the safety of this intervention has been summarized only in healthy populations and not in clinical populations with musculoskeletal disorders.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and adverse events associated with BFRT in patients with musculoskeletal disorders.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted with 3 online databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies were as follows: (1) BFRT was used as a clinical intervention, (2) study participants had a disorder of the musculoskeletal system, (3) authors addressed adverse events, (4) studies were published in English, and (5) the intervention was performed with human participants.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies met eligibility criteria, with a pooled sample size of 322. Diagnoses included various knee-related disorders, inclusion body myositis, polymyositis or dermatomyositis, thoracic outlet syndrome, Achilles tendon rupture, and bony fractures. Nine studies reported no adverse events, while 3 reported rare adverse events, including an upper extremity deep vein thrombosis and rhabdomyolysis. Three case studies reported common adverse events, including acute muscle pain and acute muscle fatigue. In the randomized controlled trials, individuals exposed to BFRT were not more likely to have an adverse event than individuals exposed to exercise alone. Of the 19 studies, the adverse events were as follows: overall, 14 of 322; rare overall, 3 of 322; rare BFRT, 3 of 168; rare control, 0 of 154; any adverse BFRT, 10 of 168; any adverse control, 4 of 154. A majority of studies were excluded because they did not address safety.

CONCLUSION

BFRT appears to be a safe strengthening approach for knee-related musculoskeletal disorders, but further research is needed to make definitive conclusions and to evaluate the safety in other musculoskeletal conditions. Improved definitions of adverse events related to BFRT are needed to include clear criteria for differentiating among common, uncommon, and rare adverse events. Finally, further research is needed to effectively screen who might be at risk for rare adverse events.

Is there rationale for the cuff pressures prescribed for blood flow restriction exercise? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Blood flow restriction exercise has increasingly broad applications among healthy and clinical populations. Ensuring the technique is applied in a safe, controlled, and beneficial way for target populations is essential. Individualized cuff pressures are a favored method for achieving this. However, there remains marked inconsistency in how individualized cuff pressures are applied.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the cuff pressures used in the broader blood flow restriction exercise literature, and determine whether there is clear justification for the choice of pressure prescribed.

METHODS

Studies were included in this review from database searches if they employed an experimental design using original data, involved either acute or chronic exercise using blood flow restriction, and they assessed limb or arterial occlusion pressure to determine an individualized cuff pressure. Methodologies of the studies were evaluated using a bespoke quality assessment tool.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Individualized cuff pressures ranged from 30% to 100% arterial occlusion pressure. Only 7 out of 52 studies attempted to justify the individualized cuff pressure applied during exercise. The mean quality rating for all studies was 11.1 ± 1.2 out of 13.

CONCLUSIONS

The broader blood flow restriction exercise literature uses markedly heterogeneous prescription variables despite using individualized cuff pressures. This is problematic in the absence of any clear justification for the individualized cuff pressures selected. Systematically measuring and reporting all relevant acute responses and training adaptations to the full spectrum of BFR pressures alongside increased clarity around the methodology used during blood flow restriction exercise is paramount.

Blood Flow Restricted Exercise and Discomfort: A Review

Spitz, RW, Wong, V, Bell, ZW, Viana, RB, Chatakondi, RN, Abe, T, and Loenneke, JP. Blood flow restricted exercise and discomfort: A Review. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-Blood flow restriction exercise involves using a pneumatic cuff or elastic band to restrict arterial inflow into the muscle and block venous return out of the muscle during the exercise bout. The resultant ischemia in conjunction with low-load exercise has shown to be beneficial with increasing muscle size and strength. However, a limitation of using blood flow restriction (BFR) is the accompanying discomfort associated with this type of exercise. Factors that may influence discomfort are applied pressure, width of the cuff, cuff material, sex, and training to failure. The goal of this review was to evaluate the existing literature and elucidate how these factors can be manipulated to reduce discomfort during exercise as well as provide possible directions for future research. Thirty-eight different studies were located investigating BFR and discomfort. It was found that BFR training causes more discomfort than exercise without BFR. However, chronic use of BFR may increase tolerability, but discomfort may still be elevated over traditional non-blood flow restricted exercise. Discomfort can be attenuated by the application of lower applied pressures and stopping short of task failure. Finally, in the upper body, wider cuffs seem to increase ratings of discomfort compared with more narrow cuffs. In conclusion, applying the proper-sized cuff and making the applied pressure relative to both the individual and the cuff applied may attenuate discomfort. Reducing discomfort during exercise may help increase adherence to exercise and rehabilitation programs.

The impact of cuff width and biological sex on cuff preference and the perceived discomfort to blood-flow-restricted arm exercise

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the influence of cuff width, sex, and applied pressure on the perceived discomfort associated with blood flow restriction at rest and following exercise.

APPROACH

Experiment 1 (n  =  96) consisted of four sets of biceps exercise to failure with a narrow and wide cuff inflated to the same relative pressure. Experiment 2 (n  =  87) compared two wide cuffs, one of which was inflated to a relative pressure obtained from a narrow cuff. Experiment 3 (n  =  50) compared the discomfort of wide and narrow cuffs at rest. Effects are presented as median δ (95% credible interval).

MAIN RESULTS

There was no sex effect for any variable of interest. In Experiment 1, the narrow cuff resulted in less discomfort than the wide cuff (39.3 versus 42.5; median δ  -0.388 (-0.670, -0.109)). Participants also rated the narrow cuff as more preferable. Experiment 2 found that a wide cuff inflated to a narrow cuffs pressure resulted in greater discomfort than a wide cuff (44 versus 40.9; median δ: 0.420 (0.118, 0.716)). Experiment 3 found no difference between cuff widths.

SIGNIFICANCE

Blood flow restricted exercise with a narrow cuff results in less discomfort than a wider cuff inflated to the same relative pressure. This effect is not observed at rest and suggests that the wide cuff produces a differential environment compared to a narrow cuff when combined with exercise. Additionally, applying a pressure meant for a narrow cuff to a wide cuff augments the applied pressure and subsequent discomfort to blood flow restricted exercise.

Blood Flow Restriction Exercise: Considerations of Methodology, Application, and Safety

The current manuscript sets out a position stand for blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise, focusing on the methodology, application and safety of this mode of training. With the emergence of this technique and the wide variety of applications within the literature, the aim of this position stand is to set out a current research informed guide to BFR training to practitioners. This covers the use of BFR to enhance muscular strength and hypertrophy via training with resistance and aerobic exercise and preventing muscle atrophy using the technique passively. The authorship team for this article was selected from the researchers focused in BFR training research with expertise in exercise science, strength and conditioning and sports medicine.

Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise as a Rehabilitation Modality Following Orthopaedic Surgery: A Review of Venous Thromboembolism Risk

Synopsis Restoration of skeletal muscle mass and strength is critical to successful outcomes following orthopaedic surgery. Blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance exercise has emerged as a promising means of augmenting traditional low-intensity physical rehabilitation exercise and has yielded successful outcomes in a wide range of applications. Though BFR is well tolerated and safe for most individuals, patients who have undergone orthopaedic surgery may be an exception, due to their heightened risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). While the pathogenesis of VTE is multifactorial and specific to the individual, it is commonly described as a combination of blood stasis, endothelial injury, and alterations in the constituents of the blood leading to hypercoagulability. The collective literature suggests that, given the pathogenic mechanisms of VTE, limited use of a wide, partially occluding cuff during resistance exercise should be low risk, and the likelihood that BFR would directly cause a VTE event is remote. Alternatively, it is plausible that BFR may enhance blood flow and promote fibrinolysis. Of greater concern is the individual with pre-existing asymptomatic VTE, which could be dislodged during BFR. However, it is unknown whether the direct risk associated with BFR is greater than the risk accompanying traditional exercise alone. Presently, there are no universally agreed-upon standards indicating which postsurgical orthopaedic patients may perform BFR safely. While excluding all these patients from BFR may be overly cautious, clinicians need to thoroughly screen for VTE signs and symptoms, be cognizant of each patient's risk factors, and use proper equipment and prescription methods prior to initiating BFR. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(1):17-27. Epub 12 Sep 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8375.

Technical and Training Related Aspects of Resistance Training Using Blood Flow Restriction in Competitive Sport - A Review

Blood flow restriction (BFR) combined with resistance training (RT-BFR) shows significant benefits in terms of muscle strength and hypertrophy. Such effects have been observed in clinical populations, in groups of physically active people, and among competitive athletes. These effects are comparable or, in some cases, even more efficient compared to conventional resistance training (CRT). RT-BFR stimulates muscle hypertrophy and improves muscle strength even at low external loads. Since no extensive scientific research has been done in relation to groups of athletes, the aim of the present study was to identify technical, physiological and methodological aspects related to the use of RT-BFR in competitive athletes from various sport disciplines. RT-BFR in groups of athletes has an effect not only on the improvement of muscle strength or muscle hypertrophy, but also on specific motor abilities related to a particular sport discipline. The literature review reveals that most experts do not recommend the use RT-BFR as the only training method, but rather as a complementary method to CRT. It is likely that optimal muscle adaptive changes can be induced by a combination of CRT and RT-BFR. Some research has confirmed benefits of using CRT followed by RT-BFR during a training session. The use of BFR in training also requires adequate progression or modifications in the duration of occlusion in a training session, the ratio of exercises performed with BFR to conventional exercises, the value of pressure or the cuff width.

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 acute muscular response to two distinct blood flow restriction protocols

The purpose of this study was to determine acute physiological and perceptual responses to two commonly implemented blood flow restriction protocols. Using a within-subject design, 15 participants (age ∼25) performed four sets of unilateral elbow flexion with each arm. One arm exercised using a 3-cm elastic cuff inflated to 160 mmHg, whereas the other arm exercised using a 5-cm nylon cuff inflated to 40% of the individual's arterial occlusion pressure. While both protocols elicited increases in acute muscle thickness [pre: 4.5 (0.2) cm, post: 5.0 (0.2) cm; p < 0.001] and electromyography amplitude [first 3 reps: 55 ( 5 ) %MVC; last 3 reps: 87 ( 10 ) %MVC], there were no differences between conditions. Both protocols produced decreases in post-exercise strength (pre: 70 Nm, post: 51 Nm; p < 0.001) with no difference between conditions. The nylon protocol resulted in more repetitions during sets 2 [13 ( 2 ) vs. 9 ( 4 ); p = 0.001] and 3 [10 ( 2 ) vs. 7 ( 4 ); p = 0.05], while producing lower levels of discomfort following each set (average 3 vs. 4; p < 0.05). In conclusion, both protocols produced similar acute responses thought to be important for promoting muscle growth. However, the use of arbitrary pressures may place some individuals under complete arterial occlusion which may increase the potential risk of an adverse event.

Adaptation of Perceptual Responses to Low-Load Blood Flow Restriction Training

Martín-Hernández, J, Ruiz-Aguado, J, Herrero, AJ, Loenneke, JP, Aagaard, P, Cristi-Montero, C, Menéndez, H, and Marín, PJ. Adaptation of perceptual responses to low-load blood flow restriction training. J Strength Cond Res 31(3): 765-772, 2017-The purpose of this study was to determine the adaptive response of ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and pain over 6 consecutive training sessions. Thirty subjects were assigned to either a blood flow restriction training (BFRT) group or a high-intensity resistance training (HIT) group. Blood flow-restricted training group performed 4 sets (30 + 15 + 15 + 15, respectively) of unilateral leg extension at an intensity of 20% one repetition maximum (1RM) while a restrictive cuff was applied to the most proximal part of the leg. The HIT group performed 3 sets of 8 repetitions with 85% 1RM. Ratings of perceived exertion and pain were assessed immediately after each exercise set along the 6 training sessions and were then averaged to obtain the overall RPE and pain per session. Statistical analyses showed significant main effects for group (p ≤ 0.05) and time (p < 0.001). Ratings of perceived exertion values dropped from session 1 to session 6 in both BFRT (8.12 ± 1.3 to 5.7 ± 1.1, p < 0.001) and HIT (8.5 ± 1.2 to 6.40 ± 1.2, p < 0.001). Similar results were observed regarding pain ratings (BFRT: 8.12 ± 1.3 to 5.90 ± 1.55, p < 0.001; HIT: 6.22 ± 1.7 to 5.14 ± 1.42, p < 0.01). Our results indicate that RPE was higher after HIT, whereas differences did not reach significance regarding pain. These perceptual responses were attenuated over time, and the time course of this adaptive response was similar between BFRT and HIT. In summary, BFRT induces a marked perceptual response to training, comparable with that observed with HIT. However, this response becomes attenuated with continuous practice, leading to moderate values of RPE and pain. Perceptual responses may not limit the application of BFRT to highly motivated individuals.

Influence of cuff material on blood flow restriction stimulus in the upper body

The purpose of this study was to examine the acute skeletal muscle and perceptual responses to blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise to failure between narrow nylon and elastic inflatable cuffs at rest and during exercise. Torque and muscle thickness was measured pre, post, and 5, 20, 40, and 60 min post-exercise with muscle activation being measured throughout exercise. Resting arterial occlusion pressure was different between the nylon [139 (14) mmHg] and elastic [246 (71) mmHg, p < 0.001] cuffs. However, when exercising at 40 % of each cuff's respective arterial occlusion pressure [nylon: 57 (7) vs. elastic: 106 (38) mmHg, p < 0.001], there were no differences in repetitions to failure, torque, muscle thickness, or muscle activation between the cuffs. Exercising with cuffs of different material but similar width resulted in the same acute muscular response when the cuffs were inflated to a pressure relative to each individual cuff.

Blood flow restriction training and the exercise pressor reflex: a call for concern

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training (also known as Kaatsu training) is an increasingly common practice employed during resistance exercise by athletes attempting to enhance skeletal muscle mass and strength. During BFR training, blood flow to the exercising muscle is mechanically restricted by placing flexible pressurizing cuffs around the active limb proximal to the working muscle. This maneuver results in the accumulation of metabolites (e.g., protons and lactic acid) in the muscle interstitium that increase muscle force and promote muscle growth. Therefore, the premise of BFR training is to simulate and receive the benefits of high-intensity resistance exercise while merely performing low-intensity resistance exercise. This technique has also been purported to provide health benefits to the elderly, individuals recovering from joint injuries, and patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Since the seminal work of Alam and Smirk in the 1930s, it has been well established that reductions in blood flow to exercising muscle engage the exercise pressor reflex (EPR), a reflex that significantly contributes to the autonomic cardiovascular response to exercise. However, the EPR and its likely contribution to the BFR-mediated cardiovascular response to exercise is glaringly missing from the scientific literature. Inasmuch as the EPR has been shown to generate exaggerated increases in sympathetic nerve activity in disease states such as hypertension (HTN), heart failure (HF), and peripheral artery disease (PAD), concerns are raised that BFR training can be used safely for the rehabilitation of patients with cardiovascular disease, as has been suggested. Abnormal BFR-induced and EPR-mediated cardiovascular complications generated during exercise could precipitate adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (e.g., cardiac arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, stroke and sudden cardiac death). Moreover, although altered EPR function in HTN, HF, and PAD underlies our concern for the widespread implementation of BFR, use of this training mechanism may also have negative consequences in the absence of disease. That is, even normal, healthy individuals performing resistance training exercise with BFR are potentially at increased risk for deleterious cardiovascular events. This review provides a brief yet detailed overview of the mechanisms underlying the autonomic cardiovascular response to exercise with BFR. A more complete understanding of the consequences of BFR training is needed before this technique is passively explored by the layman athlete or prescribed by a health care professional.

The effects of resistance exercise with and without different degrees of blood-flow restriction on perceptual responses

The aim was to compare exercise with and without different degrees of blood-flow restriction on perceived exertion (RPE) and discomfort. Participants were assigned to Experiment 1, 2, or 3. Each completed protocols differing by pressure, load, and/or volume. RPE and discomfort were taken before and after each set. For pressure and RPE, the 20% one repetition maximum (1RM) blood-flow restriction conditions were affected by increasing the pressure from 40% to 50% blood-flow restriction (~12 vs. ~14). This did not appear to happen within the 30% 1RM blood-flow restriction conditions or the higher pressures in the 20% 1RM conditions. The similar RPE between 20% and 30% 1RM to failure was expected given both were to failure. For discomfort, ratings were primarily affected by load at the lowest pressure. Increasing pressure to 50% blood-flow restriction increased discomfort at 20% 1RM (~2.6 vs. ~4). There was a further increase when increasing to 60% blood-flow restriction (~4 vs. ~4.8). The high-load condition had the lowest discomfort, while ratings were highest with 20% 1RM to failure. In conclusion, exercise with blood-flow restriction does not appear to augment the perceptual response observed with low-load exercise to failure.