Perceptual responses to continuous versus intermittent blood flow restriction exercise: A randomized controlled trial

The Discrepancy Between External and Internal Load/Intensity during Blood Flow Restriction Exercise: Understanding Blood Flow Restriction Pressure as Modulating Factor

Physical exercise induces acute psychophysiological responses leading to chronic adaptations when the exercise stimulus is applied repeatedly, at sufficient time periods, and with appropriate magnitude. To maximize long-term training adaptations, it is crucial to control and manipulate the external load and the resulting psychophysiological strain. Therefore, scientists have developed a theoretical framework that distinguishes between the physical work performed during exercise (i.e., external load/intensity) and indicators of the body's psychophysiological response (i.e., internal load/intensity). However, the application of blood flow restriction (BFR) during exercise with low external loads/intensities (e.g., ≤ 30% of the one-repetition-maximum, ≤ 50% of maximum oxygen uptake) can induce physiological and perceptual responses, which are commonly associated with high external loads/intensities. This current opinion aimed to emphasize the mismatch between external and internal load/intensity when BFR is applied during exercise. In this regard, there is evidence that BFR can be used to manipulate both external load/intensity (by reducing total work when exercise is performed to exhaustion) and internal load/intensity (by leading to higher physiological and perceptual responses compared to exercise performed with the same external load/intensity without BFR). Furthermore, it is proposed to consider BFR as an additional exercise determinant, given that the amount of BFR pressure can determine not only the internal but also external load/intensity. Finally, terminological recommendations for the use of the proposed terms in the scientific context and for practitioners are given, which should be considered when designing, reporting, discussing, and presenting BFR studies, exercise, and/or training programs.

Progression and perceptual responses to blood flow restriction resistance training among people with multiple sclerosis

PURPOSE

Resistance exercise can attenuate muscular impairments associated with multiple sclerosis (MS), and blood flow restriction (BFR) may provide a viable alternative to prescribing heavy training loads. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the progression of upper and lower body low-load (30% of one-repetition maximum [1RM]) resistance training (RT) with BFR applied intermittently during the exercise intervals (RT + BFR) versus volume-matched heavy-load (65% of 1RM) RT.

METHODS

Men and women with MS (n = 16) were randomly assigned to low-load RT + BFR (applied intermittently) or heavy-load RT and completed 12 weeks (2 × /week) of RT that consisted of bilateral chest press, seated row, shoulder press, leg press, leg extension, and leg curl exercises. Exercise load, tonnage, and rating of perceived exertion were assessed at baseline and every 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Training load increased to a greater extent and sometimes earlier for RT + BFR (57.7-106.3%) than heavy-load RT (42.3-54.3%) during chest press, seated row, and leg curl exercises, while there were similar increases (63.5-101.1%) for shoulder press, leg extension, and leg press exercises. Exercise tonnage was greater across all exercises for RT + BFR than heavy-load RT, although tonnage only increased during the chest press (70.7-80.0%) and leg extension (89.1%) exercises. Perceptions of exertion (4.8-7.2 au) and compliance (97.9-99.0%) were similar for both interventions.

CONCLUSION

The training-induced increases in load, high compliance, and moderate levels of exertion suggested that RT + BFR and heavy-load RT are viable interventions among people with MS. RT + BFR may be a preferred modality if heavy loads are not well tolerated and/or to promote early-phase training responses.

Effects of blood flow restriction training on physical fitness among athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) is an effective, scientific and safe training method, but its effect on the overall quality of athletes remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to clarify the effects of BFRT on the physical fitness among athletes. Based on the PRISMA guidelines, searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and SCOUPS, the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool was used to assess methodological quality, and RevMan 5.4 and STATA 15.0 software were used to analyze the data. A meta-analysis of 28 studies with a total sample size of 542 athletes aged 14-26 years and assessed as low risk for quality was performed. Our results revealed that the BFRT intervention had small to large improvements in the athletes' strength (ES = 0.74-1.03), power (ES = 0.46), speed (ES = 0.54), endurance (ES = 1.39-1.40), body composition (ES = 0.28-1.23), while there was no significant effect on body mass (p > 0.05). Subgroup analyses revealed that moderator variables (training duration, frequency, load, cuff pressure, and pressurization time) also had varying degrees of effect on athletes' physical fitness parameters. In conclusion, BFRT had a positive effect on the physical fitness parameters of the athletes, with significantly improved strength, power, speed, endurance and body composition, but not body mass parameters. When the training frequency ≥ 3 times/week, cuff pressure ≥ 160 mmHg, and pressurization time ≥ 10 min, the BFRT group was more favorable for the improvement of physical fitness parameters.

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.

Intermittent blood flow restriction with low-load resistance training for older adults with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a chronic musculoskeletal disorder characterized by pain and functional impairment. Blood flow restriction (BFR) with low-load resistance training (LLRT) demonstrates a similar improvement in clinical outcomes to high-load resistance training (HLRT) in treating KOA. It has not been established whether intermittent blood flow restriction (iBFR) with LLRT can lead to clinical outcomes that are comparable to those produced by continuous blood flow restriction (cBFR) with LLRT and HLRT. The aim of the proposed study is to evaluate the efficacy of iBFR with LLRT on pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, perceptions of discomfort and effort, and adherence in KOA patients.

METHODS

This is a three-arm, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial utilizing blinded assessors. Two hundred thirteen participants will be randomly allocated to one of the following three groups: iBFR group-receiving 4 months of LLRT with iBFR, twice weekly (n = 71); cBFR group-receiving 4 months of LLRT with cBFR, twice weekly (n = 71); or HLRT group-receiving 4 months of HLRT without BFR, twice weekly (n = 71). The primary outcome is pain. The secondary outcomes include the WOMAC, muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, perceptions of discomfort and effort, and adherence. Pain and WOMAC will be measured at the baseline and 4 and 12 months after randomizations. Muscle strength, muscle mass, and physical function will be measured at the baseline and 4 months after randomizations. The perceptions of discomfort and effort will be measured during the first and final sessions.

DISCUSSION

BFR with LLRT has a similar improvement in clinical outcomes as HLRT. However, cBFR may cause elevated ratings of perceived exertion and local discomfort, compromising patient tolerability and treatment adherence. If iBFR with LLRT could produce improvement in clinical outcomes analogous to those of HLRT and iBFR with LLRT, it could be considered an alternative approach for treating patients with KOA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300072820. Registered on June 26, 2023.

Comparing the effect of intermittent blood flow restriction training and high-load resistance training in patients with patellofemoral pain: study protocol for a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Patellofemoral pain (PFP) syndrome is a common knee joint functional disorder. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training has shown promise in improving PFP; however, the effectiveness of intermittent BFR (iBFR) training remains uncertain. This study aims to compare the rehabilitative effects of iBFR combined with low-load resistance training and high-load resistance training in PFP patients and to assess the effectiveness of iBFR combined with low-load resistance training for improving PFP.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This randomised, patient-assessor blinded, controlled trial will include 42 eligible PFP patients randomly allocated to an intervention group (iBFR combined with low-load resistance training) or a control group (high-load resistance training) in a 1:1 ratio. Participants will receive interventions three times per week for 8 weeks and will be followed up for 24 weeks. The primary outcome measure is pain, and the secondary outcomes include self-reported function, quality of life, muscle strength and muscle thickness. Assessments will be conducted at baseline, 8 weeks and 24 weeks during follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis will be performed.Collectively, we expect that the findings of this randomised clinical trial will contribute to understanding the potential benefits of iBFR training and provide insightful guidance for developing more effective treatment strategies for patients with PFP.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Sports Science Experiment Ethics Committee of Beijing Sport University (2022274H). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Trial results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300068281).

Hormonal, immune, and oxidative stress responses to blood flow-restricted exercise

INTRODUCTION

Heavy-load free-flow resistance exercise (HL-FFRE) is a widely used training modality. Recently, low-load blood-flow restricted resistance exercise (LL-BFRRE) has gained attention in both athletic and clinical settings as an alternative when conventional HL-FFRE is contraindicated or not tolerated. LL-BFRRE has been shown to result in physiological adaptations in muscle and connective tissue that are comparable to those induced by HL-FFRE. The underlying mechanisms remain unclear; however, evidence suggests that LL-BFRRE involves elevated metabolic stress compared to conventional free-flow resistance exercise (FFRE).

AIM

The aim was to evaluate the initial (<10 min post-exercise), intermediate (10-20 min), and late (>30 min) hormonal, immune, and oxidative stress responses observed following acute sessions of LL-BFRRE compared to FFRE in healthy adults.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of randomized and non-randomized studies was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB2, ROBINS-1) and TESTEX were used to evaluate risk of bias and study quality. Data extractions were based on mean change within groups.

RESULTS

A total of 12525 hits were identified, of which 29 articles were included. LL-BFRRE demonstrated greater acute increases in growth hormone responses when compared to overall FFRE at intermediate (SMD 2.04; 95% CI 0.87, 3.22) and late (SMD 2.64; 95% CI 1.13, 4.16) post-exercise phases. LL-BFRRE also demonstrated greater increase in testosterone responses compared to late LL-FFRE.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that LL-BFRRE can induce increased or similar hormone and immune responses compared to LL-FFRE and HL-FFRE along with attenuated oxidative stress responses compared to HL-FFRE.

Acute Effect of Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction on Perceptual Responses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Several studies have compared perceptual responses between resistance exercise with blood flow restriction and traditional resistance exercise (non-BFR). However, the results were contradictory.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the effect of RE+BFR versus non-BFR resistance exercise [low-load resistance exercise (LL-RE) or high-load resistance exercise (HL-RE)] on perceptual responses.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed®, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science were searched through August 28, 2021, and again on August 25, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies comparing the effect of RE+BFR versus non-BFR resistance exercise on rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and muscle pain/discomfort were considered. Meta-analyses were conducted using the random effects model.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 2.

DATA EXTRACTION

All data were reviewed and extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer.

RESULTS

Thirty studies were included in this review. In a fixed repetition scheme, the RPE [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.04; P < 0.01] and discomfort (SMD = 1.10; P < 0.01) were higher in RE+BFR than in non-BFR LL-RE, but similar in sets to voluntary failure. There were no significant differences in RPE in the comparisons between RE+BFR and non-BFR HL-RE; after sensitivity analyses, it was found that the RPE was higher in non-BFR HL-RE in a fixed repetition scheme. In sets to voluntary failure, discomfort was higher in RE+BFR versus non-BFR HL-RE (SMD = 0.95; P < 0. 01); however, in a fixed scheme, the results were similar.

CONCLUSION

In sets to voluntary failure, RPE is similar between RE+BFR and non-BFR exercise. In fixed repetition schemes, RE+BFR seems to promote higher RPE than non-BFR LL-RE and less than HL-RE. In sets to failure, discomfort appears to be similar between LL-RE with and without BFR; however, RE+BFR appears to promote greater discomfort than HL-RE. In fixed repetition schemes, the discomfort appears to be no different between RE+BFR and HL-RE, but is lower in non-BFR LL-RE.

Comparative Perceptual, Affective, and Cardiovascular Responses between Resistance Exercise with and without Blood Flow Restriction in Older Adults

Older adults and patients with chronic disease presenting with muscle weakness or musculoskeletal disorders may benefit from low-load resistance exercise (LLRE) with blood flow restriction (BFR). LLRE-BFR has been shown to increase muscle size, strength, and endurance comparable to traditional resistance exercise but without the use of heavy loads. However, potential negative effects from LLRE-BFR present as a barrier to participation and limit its wider use. This study examined the perceptual, affective, and cardiovascular responses to a bout of LLRE-BFR and compared the responses to LLRE and moderate-load resistance exercise (MLRE). Twenty older adults (64.3 ± 4.2 years) performed LLRE-BFR, LLRE and MLRE consisting of 4 sets of leg press and knee extension, in a randomised crossover design. LLRE-BFR was more demanding than LLRE and MLRE through increased pain (p ≤ 0.024, d = 0.8-1.4) and reduced affect (p ≤ 0.048, d = -0.5--0.9). Despite this, LLRE-BFR was enjoyed and promoted a positive affective response (p ≤ 0.035, d = 0.5-0.9) following exercise comparable to MLRE. This study supports the use of LLRE-BFR for older adults and encourages future research to examine the safety, acceptability, and efficacy of LLRE-BFR in patients with chronic disease.

Blood Flow Restriction Therapy: An Evidence-Based Approach to Postoperative Rehabilitation

➢

Blood flow restriction therapy (BFRT) involves the application of a pneumatic tourniquet cuff to the proximal portion of the arm or leg. This restricts arterial blood flow while occluding venous return, which creates a hypoxic environment that induces many physiologic adaptations.

➢

BFRT is especially useful in postoperative rehabilitation because it produces muscular hypertrophy and strength gains without the need for heavy-load exercises that are contraindicated after surgery.

➢

Low-load resistance training with BFRT may be preferable to low-load or high-load training alone because it leads to comparable increases in strength and hypertrophy, without inducing muscular edema or increasing pain.

Is There a Minimum Effective Dose for Vascular Occlusion During Blood Flow Restriction Training?

Background

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training at lower exercise intensities has a range of applications, allowing subjects to achieve strength and hypertrophy gains matching those training at high intensity. However, there is no clear consensus on the percentage of limb occlusion pressure [%LOP, expressed as a % of the pressure required to occlude systolic blood pressure (SBP)] and percentage of one repetition max weight (%1RM) required to achieve these results. This review aims to explore what the optimal and minimal combination of LOP and 1RM is for significant results using BFR.

Method

A literature search using PubMed, Scopus, Wiley Online, Springer Link, and relevant citations from review papers was performed, and articles assessed for suitability. Original studies using BFR with a resistance training exercise intervention, who chose a set %LOP and %1RM and compared to a non-BFR control were included in this review.

Result

Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. %LOP ranged from 40 to 150%. %1RM used ranged from 15 to 80%. Training at 1RM ≤20%, or ≥ 80% did not produce significant strength results compared to controls. Applying %LOP of ≤50% and ≥ 80% did not produce significant strength improvement compared to controls. This may be due to a mechanism mediated by lactate accumulation, which is facilitated by increased training volume and a moderate exercise intensity.

Conclusion

Training at a minimum of 30 %1RM with BFR is required for strength gains matching non-BFR high intensity training. Moderate intensity training (40-60%1RM) with BFR may produce results exceeding non-BFR high intensity however the literature is sparse. A %LOP of 50-80% is optimal for BFR training.

Tolerance to Intermittent vs. Continuous Blood Flow Restriction Training: A meta-Analysis

The proven beneficial effects of low-load blood flow restriction training on strength gain has led to further exploration into its application during rehabilitation, where the traditional use of heavy loads may not be feasible. With current evidence showing that low-load blood flow restriction training may be less well tolerated than heavy-load resistance training, this review was conducted to decipher whether intermittently deflating the pressure cuff during rest intervals of a training session improves tolerance to exercise, without compromising strength. Four databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of intermittent versus continuous blood flow restriction training on outcomes of exercise tolerance or strength in adults. Nine studies were identified, with six included in the meta-analysis. No significant difference in rate of perceived exertion was found (SMD-0.06, 95% CI-0.41 to 0.29, p=0.73, I ²=80%). Subgroup analysis excluding studies that introduced bias showed a shift towards favoring the use of intermittent blood flow restriction training (SMD-0.42, 95% CI-0.87 to 0.03, p=0.07, I ²=0%). There was no significant difference in strength gain. Intermittent cuff deflations during training intervals does not improve tolerance to exercise during blood flow restriction training.

The Effects of Ischemia During Rest Intervals on Bar Velocity in the Bench Press Exercise With Different External Loads

The main aim of the present study was to evaluate the acute effects of ischemia used during rest periods on bar velocity changes during the bench press exercise at progressive loads, from 20 to 90% of 1RM. Ten healthy resistance trained men volunteered for the study (age = 26.3 ± 4.7 years; body mass = 89.8 ± 6.3 kg; bench press 1RM = 142.5 ± 16.9 kg; training experience = 7.8 ± 2.7 years). During the experimental sessions the subjects performed the bench press exercise under two different conditions, in a randomized and counterbalanced order: (a) ischemia condition, with ischemia applied before the first set and during every rest periods between sets, and (b) control condition where no ischemia was applied. During each experimental session eight sets of the bench press exercise were performed, against loads starting from 20 to 90% 1RM, increased progressively by 10% in each subsequent set. A 3-min rest interval between sets was used. For ischemia condition the cuffs was applied 3 min before the first set and during every rest period between sets. Ischemia was released during exercise. The cuff pressure was set to ∼80% of full arterial occlusion pressure. The two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed a statistically significant interaction effect for peak bar velocity (p = 0.04) and for mean bar velocity (p = 0.01). There was also a statistically significant main effect of condition for peak bar velocity (p < 0.01) but not for mean bar velocity (p = 0.25). The post hoc analysis for interaction showed significantly higher peak bar velocity for the ischemia condition compared to control at a load of 20% 1RM (p = 0.007) and at a load of 50% 1RM (p = 0.006). The results of the present study indicate that ischemia used before each set even for a brief duration of <3 min, has positive effects on peak bar velocity at light loads, but it is insufficient to induce such effect on higher loads.

Perceived Barriers to Blood Flow Restriction Training

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training is increasing in popularity in the fitness and rehabilitation settings due to its role in optimizing muscle mass and strength as well as cardiovascular capacity, function, and a host of other benefits. However, despite the interest in this area of research, there are likely some perceived barriers that practitioners must overcome to effectively implement this modality into practice. These barriers include determining BFR training pressures, access to appropriate BFR training technologies for relevant demographics based on the current evidence, a comprehensive and systematic approach to medical screening for safe practice and strategies to mitigate excessive perceptual demands of BFR training to foster long-term compliance. This manuscript attempts to discuss each of these barriers and provides evidence-based strategies and direction to guide clinical practice and future research.

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.

The acute and early phase effects of blood flow restriction training on ratings of perceived exertion, performance fatigability, and muscular strength in women

BACKGROUND: Blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance training (RT) has garnered recent interest, but female-specific data remains scarce. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to examine the effects of 2-wks of low-load concentric, isokinetic, reciprocal forearm flexion and extension training, with and without BFR on perceptual responses, performance fatigability, and muscular strength. METHODS: Twenty women were assigned to a BFRT or a non-BFRT group. Each group trained at 30% of concentric peak moment. Each session consisted of 75 concentric, isokinetic, reciprocal forearm flexion extension muscle actions. RPEs were recorded following each set. Pretest and posttest maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) force was measured, and percent decline was defined as performance fatigability. RESULTS: The RPE values (p< 0.05) increased across sets. Strength (collapsed across muscle action) increased (p< 0.05) from 0-wk (23.7 ± 3.2 Nm) to 2-wk (26.8 ± 2.7 Nm). Independent of group and muscle action, performance fatigability (p< 0.05) increased from 0-wk (10.9 ± 5.0%) to 2-wk (14.1 ± 4.4%). CONCLUSIONS: 2-wks of low-load concentric, reciprocal forearm flexion and extension training resulted in similar training-induced changes in perceptual responses, performance fatigability, and muscular strength between BFRT and non-BFRT. These findings may reduce concerns of increased perceptual responses following BFRRT compared to non-BFRRT.

The perceptual responses of individuals with multiple sclerosis to blood flow restriction versus traditional resistance exercise

BACKGROUND

Low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (_LLBFR-RE) has been shown capable of improving neuromuscular parameters in several clinical populations, however, its tolerability and effects on individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the perceptual responses of individuals with MS to _LLBFR-RE versus traditional high-load resistance exercise (HL-RE).

METHODS

Four men and eleven women diagnosed with relapsing-remitting MS randomly completed the following experimental trials: 1) _LLBFR-RE four sets of 30-15-15-15 repetitions, at 20% of one-repetition maximum (1-RM) of leg-press (LP) and knee-extension (KE), with 50% of BFR, and a 1-min rest interval between sets; 2) HL-RE- four sets of 8-10 repetitions, at 70% 1-RM of LP and KE, with the same rest intervals. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured after each set, pain was measured before and after sets, and delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) was measured at 5, 30, 60 min, and 24-h post-exercise.

RESULTS

HL-RE elicited significantly (p<0.05) greater RPE compared to _LLBFR-RE during all sets. Additionally, there were no significant (p>0.05) differences between _LLBFR-RE and HL-RE for pain immediately after all sets, although pain measured before sets were significantly (p<0.05) greater for _LLBFR-RE. Finally, both protocols resulted in similar DOMS, however, it was significantly (p<0.05) elevated 24-h post-exercise compared to 1-h after for HL-RE but not for _LLBFR-RE.

CONCLUSION

Altogether, these data demonstrate that _LLBFR-RE is well tolerated by individuals with MS, requires less muscular exertion than HL-RE, and does not cause exaggerated pain during exercise or elevated DOMS up to 24 h post-exercise.

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.

Exercise: A Protective Measure or an "Open Window" for COVID-19? A Mini Review

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread to at least 115 countries and caused an alarming number of deaths. The current outbreak has lead authorities from many countries to adopt several protective measures, including lockdown and social distancing. Although being a reasonable measure to counteract the COVID-19 contamination, the restrictive measures have limited individual's ability to perform exercise outdoors or in gyms and similar facilities, thus raising the risks for chronic health conditions related to a sedentary lifestyle. The recent exercise recommendations to counteract the potential deleterious effects of COVID-19-related lockdown have not fully addressed resistance exercise interventions as potential home-based exercise strategies. Additionally, the following questions have been constantly raised: (1) Is training status capable of protecting an individual from COVID-19 infection?; and (2) Can a single endurance or resistance exercise session acutely increase the risks for COVID-19 infection? Therefore, the current mini review aimed to focus on these two concerns, as well as to discuss the potential use of practical blood flow restriction and no load resistance training as possible resistance exercise strategies that could be performed during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Acute Physiological Responses to Resistance Exercise With Continuous Versus Intermittent Blood Flow Restriction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The primary goal of this investigation was to examine the physiological responses of blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance exercise (RE) performed with continuous or intermittent BFR and to compare these results to those from conventional high- and low-load RE without BFR. Fourteen men randomly completed the following experimental trials: (1) low-load RE with continuous BFR (cBFR), (2) low-load RE with intermittent BFR (iBFR), (3) low-load RE without BFR (LI), and (4) conventional high-load RE without BFR (HI). For the cBFR, iBFR, and LI exercise trials, participants performed four sets of 30-15-15-15 repetitions of the bilateral leg press (LP) and knee extension (KE) exercises, at an intensity of 20% of their one-repetition maximum (1-RM), at a 1.5-s contraction speed, and with a 1-min rest period between sets. The only difference between the cBFR and iBFR protocols was that the pressure of the cuffs was released during the rest intervals between sets for the iBFR trial. For the HI trial, participants completed four sets of 10 repetitions of the same exercises, at 70% of 1-RM, with a 1-min rest period between sets, and at the same contraction speed. Muscle activity was assessed during each set using superficial electromyography, as well as changes in blood lactate concentration [La^-] from baseline at 5 min post exercise and in muscle swelling and plasma volume (%ΔPV) at 5 and 15 min post exercise. There were no significant differences in muscle activity (p < 0.05) across the cBFR, iBFR, and LI protocols at any time point, whereas they were all significantly lower than HI. There were also no significant (p < 0.05) differences across the three low-load RE conditions for [La^-],%ΔPV, or muscle swelling. HI elicited significantly (p < 0.05) greater responses than cBFR, iBFR, and LI for all the physiological markers measured. In conclusion, RE combined with cBFR or iBFR induce the same acute physiological responses. However, the largest physiological responses are observed with HI, probably because of the significantly greater exercise volumes. Therefore, releasing the pressure of the restrictive cuffs during the rest periods between sets will not hinder the acute physiological responses from BFR RE.