Rate of force development to evaluate the neuromuscular fatigue and recovery after an intermittent isometric handgrip task with different blood flow restriction conditions

Rate of Force Development as an Indicator of Neuromuscular Fatigue: A Scoping Review

Because rate of force development (RFD) is an emerging outcome measure for the assessment of neuromuscular function in unfatigued conditions, and it represents a valid alternative/complement to the classical evaluation of pure maximal strength, this scoping review aimed to map the available evidence regarding RFD as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue. Thus, following a general overview of the main studies published on this topic, we arbitrarily compared the amount of neuromuscular fatigue between the “gold standard” measure (maximal voluntary force, MVF) and peak, early (≤100 ms) and late (>100 ms) RFD. Seventy full-text articles were included in the review. The most-common fatiguing exercises were resistance exercises (37% of the studies), endurance exercises/locomotor activities (23%), isokinetic contractions (17%), and simulated/real sport situations (13%). The most widely tested tasks were knee extension (60%) and plantar flexion (10%). The reason (i.e., rationale) for evaluating RFD was lacking in 36% of the studies. On average, the amount of fatigue for MVF (−19%) was comparable to late RFD (−19%) but lower compared to both peak RFD (−25%) and early RFD (−23%). Even if the rationale for evaluating RFD in the fatigued state was often lacking and the specificity between test task and fatiguing exercise characteristics was not always respected in the included studies, RFD seems to be a valid indicator of neuromuscular fatigue. Based on our arbitrary analyses, peak RFD and early phase RFD appear even to be more sensitive to quantify neuromuscular fatigue than MVF and late phase RFD.

Effects of low-load blood flow restriction exercise to failure and non-failure on myoelectric activity: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the short- and long-term effects of low load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) versus low- (LL-RT) or high-load (HL-RT) resistance training with free blood flow on myoelectric activity, and investigate the differences between failure and non-failure protocols.

DATA SOURCE

We identified sources by searching the MEDLINE/PUBMED, CINAHL, WEB OF SCIENCE, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, SPORTDiscus, and PEDro electronic databases.

STUDY SELECTION

We screened titles and abstracts of 1048 articles using our inclusion criteria. A total of 39 articles were selected for further analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of each study and extracted data from studies. A meta-analytic approach was used to compute standardized mean differences (SMD ± 95% confidence intervals (CI)). Subgroup analyses were conducted for both failure or non-failure protocols.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The search identified n = 39 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Regarding the short-term effects, LL-BFR increased muscle excitability compared with LL-RT during non-failure exercises (SMD 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.88), whereas HL-RT increased muscle excitability compared with LL-BFR regardless of voluntary failure (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.01 to 0.21) or not (SMD -1.13, CI -1.94 to -0.33). Concerning the long-term effects, LL-BFR increased muscle excitability compared with LL-RT during exercises performed to failure (SMD 1.09, CI 0.39 to 1.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Greater short-term muscle excitability levels are observed in LL-BFR than LL-RT during non-failure protocols. Conversely, greater muscle excitability is present during HL-RT compared with LL-BFR, regardless of volitional failure. Furthermore, LL-BFR performed to failure increases muscle excitability in the long-term compared with LL-RT.