Perceptual responses: Clinical versus practical blood flow restriction resistance exercise

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.

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

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

Survey of Blood Flow Restriction Training Applications in Sports Medicine and Performance Practice Across North America

Colapietro, MA, Lee, JZ, and Vairo, GL. Survey of blood flow restriction training applications in sports medicine and performance practice across North America. J Strength Cond Res 38(5): 856–863, 2024—This study profiled current clinical applications of blood flow restriction (BFR) training and observed side effects by surveying active sports medicine and performance personnel across North America. An online survey consisting of questions derived from a related position statement was distributed through professional organizations, email listservs, and social media. Personnel with experience applying or prescribing BFR training with permanent residence within the United States or Canada were eligible to participate. Variables captured included demographics (profession, practice setting), BFR equipment, treatment parameters, observed side effects, and personal perceptions regarding BFR training. An alpha level of p < 0.05 determined significance. A convenience sample included 72 clinicians with 67 being from the United States. Athletic trainers (n = 35) and physical therapists (n = 30) primarily participated. Chi-square test of independence indicated that a higher proportion of physical therapists (90.3%) report receiving formal education in BFR training compared with athletic trainers (65.7%) ( = 4.1, p = 0.043). Parameters varied between respondents for exercise prescription and occlusion settings. Respondents primarily followed position statement recommendations with individualized pressure selections for resistance (80.9%) and aerobic (84.8%) BFR modes. Side effects reported included delayed onset muscle soreness (66.2%), inability to continue because of pain (28%), and numbness (22.5%). Personal perceptions between athletic trainers and physical therapists were compared using independent t-tests. Physical therapists indicated higher confidence in safety (difference = 0.37 ± 0.32, p = 0.026), understanding recommendations (difference = 0.47 ± 0.37, p = 0.011), and theoretical principles (difference = 0.80 ± 0.53, p = 0.004). Despite variation in BFR parameters used, sports medicine personnel demonstrate compliance with position statement recommendations and report mild side effects.

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.

Cardiovascular and Perceptual Responses to Resistance Training with Practical Blood Flow Restriction Induced by a Non-Elastic Band vs. Pneumatic Cuff: A Crossover Randomized Study

Our purpose in this study was to analyze perceptual and cardiovascular responses in low-load resistance training (RT) sessions associated with a fixed non-elastic band compressed to the proximal region of the arms (p-BFR) versus a pneumatic cuff inflated to a pressure of 150 mmHg (t-BFR). Participants (16 healthy trained men) were randomly assigned to two conditions of low-load RT (20% one repetition maximum [1RM]) with BFR (p-BFR or t-BFR). In both conditions, the participants performed five exercises (4 sets/30-15-15-15) for the upper-limbs, but in one of the conditions, the exercises were performed with a p-BFR induced by a non-elastic band, while in the other, the exercises were performed with a t-BFR using a device with similar width. The devices used to generate the BFR had similar widths (5 cm). Brachial blood pressure (bBP) and heart rate (HR) were measured before, after each exercise and after the experimental session (5-, 10-, 15-, and 20 min post-session). Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and rating of pain perception (RPP) were reported after each exercise and 15 minutes post-session. HR increased during the training session in both conditions, with no differences between p-BFR and t-BFR. Neither intervention increased diastolic BP (DBP) during training, but there was a significant post-session reduction in DBP in the p-BFR, with no differences observed between conditions. There were no significant differences in RPE and RPP in the two training conditions, with both conditions associated with higher RPE and RPP at the end versus beginning of the experimental session. We conclude that when BFR device width and material are similar, low-load training with t-BFR and p-BFR promotes similar acute perceptual and cardiovascular responses in healthy trained men.

Comparison of finger flexor resistance training, with and without blood flow restriction, on perceptional and physiological responses in advanced climbers

This study compared perceptional and physiological responses of finger flexor exercise performed with free flow and blood flow restriction (BFR). Thirteen male advanced climbers completed three sessions of finger flexor resistance exercise at (1) 40% of MVC (Low) and (2) 75% of MVC (High) and (3) BFR at 40% of MVC (Low + BFR) in a randomized and counterbalanced order. Rate of perceived exertion for effort (RPE) and discomfort (RPD), session pleasure/displeasure (sPDF), exercise enjoyment (EES), lactate concentration and oxygen saturation were recorded after the last set. Both low-intensity sessions induced higher RPD than High (p = 0.018-0.022, ES = 1.01-1.09) and High was perceived as more enjoyable than Low-BFR (p = 0.031, ES = 1.08). No differences were found for RPE or sPDF (p = 0.132-0.804). Lactate was elevated more after High than the Low-sessions (p < 0.001, ES = 1.88-2.08). Capillary oxygen saturation was lower after Low + BFR compared to the other sessions (p = 0.031, ES = 1.04-1.27). Finally, the exercise volume was greater in Low compared to High (p = 0.022, ES = 1.14) and Low + BFR (p = 0.020, ES = 0.77). In conclusion, among advanced male climbers, performing Low + BFR led to a similar exercise volume but was perceived as more discomforting and less enjoyable compared to High. The Low session yielded similar responses as the Low + BFR but required a much greater exercise volume.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.