Acute performance, physiological, and perceptual changes in response to repeated cycling sprint exercise combined with systemic and local hypoxia in young males

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.

Differential training benefits and motor unit remodeling in wrist force precision tasks following high and low load blood flow restriction exercises under volume-matched conditions

BACKGROUND

Blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance training has demonstrated efficacy in promoting strength gains beneficial for rehabilitation. Yet, the distinct functional advantages of BFR strength training using high-load and low-load protocols remain unclear. This study explored the behavioral and neurophysiological mechanisms that explain the differing effects after volume-matched high-load and low-load BFR training.

METHODS

Twenty-eight healthy participants were randomly assigned to the high-load blood flow restriction (BFR-HL, n = 14) and low-load blood flow restriction (BFR-LL, n = 14) groups. They underwent 3 weeks of BFR training for isometric wrist extension at intensities of 25% or 75% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) with matched training volume. Pre- and post-tests included MVC and trapezoidal force-tracking tests (0-75%-0% MVC) with multi-channel surface electromyography (EMG) from the extensor digitorum.

RESULTS

The BFR-HL group exhibited a greater strength gain than that of the BFR-LL group after training (BFR_HL: 26.96 ± 16.33% vs. BFR_LL: 11.16 ± 15.34%)(p = 0.020). However, only the BFR-LL group showed improvement in force steadiness for tracking performance in the post-test (p = 0.004), indicated by a smaller normalized change in force fluctuations compared to the BFR-HL group (p = 0.048). After training, the BFR-HL group activated motor units (MUs) with higher recruitment thresholds (p < 0.001) and longer inter-spike intervals (p = 0.002), contrary to the BFR-LL group, who activated MUs with lower recruitment thresholds (p < 0.001) and shorter inter-spike intervals (p < 0.001) during force-tracking. The discharge variability (p < 0.003) and common drive index (p < 0.002) of MUs were consistently reduced with training for the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

BFR-HL training led to greater strength gains, while BFR-LL training better improved force precision control due to activation of MUs with lower recruitment thresholds and higher discharge rates.

Continuous blood flow restriction during repeated-sprint exercise increases peripheral but not systemic physiological and perceptual demands

This study examined the impact of continuous blood flow restriction (BFR) during repeated-sprint exercise (RSE) on acute performance, peripheral, systemic physiological, and perceptual responses. In a randomized crossover design, 26 adult male semi-professional and amateur team-sport players completed two RSE sessions (3 sets of 5 × 5-s sprints with 25 s of passive recovery and 3 min of rest) with continuous BFR (45% arterial occlusion; excluding during between-set rest periods) or without (non-BFR). Mean and peak power output were significantly lower (p < 0.001) during BFR compared to non-BFR (dz = 0.85 and 0.77, respectively). Minimum tissue saturation index during the sprints and rest periods was significantly reduced (p < 0.001) for BFR (dz = 1.26 and 1.21, respectively). Electromyography root mean square was significantly decreased (p < 0.01) for biceps femoris and lateral gastrocnemius muscles during BFR (dz = 0.35 and 0.79, respectively), but remained unchanged for the vastus lateralis muscle in both conditions. Oxygen consumption and minute ventilation were significantly reduced (both p < 0.01) for BFR (dz = 1.46 and 0.43, respectively). Perceived limb discomfort was significantly higher (p < 0.001) for BFR (dz = 0.78). No differences (p > 0.05) in blood lactate concentration or rating of perceived exertion were observed between conditions. Blood flow-restricted RSE reduced performance and likely increased the physiological and perceptual stimulus for the periphery with greater reliance on anaerobic glycolysis, despite comparable or decreased systemic demands.

Acute Responses to Repeated-Sprint Training in Hypoxia Combined With Whole-Body Cryotherapy: A Preliminary Study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate acute psychophysiological responses to repeated-sprint training in hypoxia (RSH) combined with whole-body cryotherapy (WBC).

METHOD

Sixteen trained cyclists performed 3 sessions in randomized order: RSH, WBC-RSH (WBC pre-RSH), and RSH-WBC (WBC post-RSH). RSH consisted of 3 sets of 5 × 10-second sprints with 20-second recovery at a simulated altitude of 3000 m. Power output, muscle oxygenation (tissue saturation index), heart-rate variability, and recovery perception were analyzed. Sleep quality was assessed on the nights following test sessions and compared with a control night using nocturnal ActiGraphy and heart-rate variability.

RESULTS

Power output did not differ between the conditions (P = .27), while the decrease in tissue saturation index was reduced for WBC-RSH compared to RSH-WBC in the last set. In both conditions with WBC, the recovery perception was higher compared to RSH (WBC-RSH: +15.4%, and RSH-WBC: +21.9%, P < .05). The number of movements during the RSH-WBC night was significantly lower than for the control night (-18.7%, P < .01) and WBC-RSH (-14.9%, P < .05). RSH led to a higher root mean square of the successive differences of R-R intervals and high-frequency band during the first hour of sleep compared to the control night (P < .05) and RSH-WBC (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Inclusion of WBC in an RSH session did not modify the power output but could improve prolonged performance in hypoxia by maintaining muscle oxygenation. A single RSH session did not deteriorate sleep quality. WBC, particularly when performed after RSH, positively influenced recovery perception and sleep.

Impact of systemic hypoxia and blood flow restriction on mechanical, cardiorespiratory, and neuromuscular responses to a multiple-set repeated sprint exercise

Introduction: Repeated sprint cycling exercises (RSE) performed under systemic normobaric hypoxia (HYP) or with blood flow restriction (BFR) are of growing interest. To the best of our knowledge, there is no stringent consensus on the cardiorespiratory and neuromuscular responses between systemic HYP and BFR during RSE. Thus, this study assessed cardiorespiratory and neuromuscular responses to multiple sets of RSE under HYP or with BFR. Methods: According to a crossover design, fifteen men completed RSE (three sets of five 10-s sprints with 20 s of recovery) in normoxia (NOR), HYP, and with bilaterally-cuffed BFR at 45% of resting arterial occlusive pressure during sets in NOR. Power output, cardiorespiratory and neuromuscular responses were assessed. Results: Average peak and mean powers were lower in BFR (dz = 0.87 and dz = 1.23, respectively) and HYP (dz = 0.65 and dz = 1.21, respectively) compared to NOR (p < 0.001). The percentage decrement of power output was greater in BFR (dz = 0.94) and HYP (dz = 0.64) compared to NOR (p < 0.001), as well as in BFR compared to NOR (p = 0.037, dz = 0.30). The percentage decrease of maximal voluntary contraction of the knee extensors after the session was greater in BFR compared to NOR and HYP (p = 0.011, dz = 0.78 and p = 0.027, dz = 0.75, respectively). Accumulated ventilation during exercise was higher in HYP and lower in BFR (p = 0.002, dz = 0.51, and p < 0.001, dz = 0.71, respectively). Peak oxygen consumption was reduced in HYP (p < 0.001, dz = 1.47). Heart rate was lower in BFR during exercise and recovery (p < 0.001, dz = 0.82 and p = 0.012, dz = 0.43, respectively). Finally, aerobic contribution was reduced in HYP compared to NOR (p = 0.002, dz = 0.46) and BFR (p = 0.005, dz = 0.33). Discussion: Thus, this study indicates that power output during RSE is impaired in HYP and BFR and that BFR amplifies neuromuscular fatigue. In contrast, HYP did not impair neuromuscular function but enhanced the ventilatory response along with reduced oxygen consumption.