Acute hemodynamic changes following high load and very low load lower body resistance exercise with and without the restriction of blood flow

Application of blood flow restriction in hypoxic environment augments muscle deoxygenation without compromising repeated sprint exercise performance

NEW FINDINGS

What is the central question of this study? Does applying blood flow restriction during the rest periods of repeated sprint exercise in a hypoxic environment lead to greater local hypoxia within exercising muscles without compromising training workload? What is the main finding and its importance? Repeated sprint exercise with blood flow restriction administered during rest periods under systemic hypoxia led to severe local hypoxia within the exercised muscles without a reduction in power output. The maintained power output might be due to elevated neuromuscular activation. Accordingly, the proposed repeated sprint exercise in the current study may be an effective training modality.

ABSTRACT

Repeated sprint exercise (RSE) is a popular training modality for a wide variety of athletic activities. The purpose of this study was to assess the combined effects of systemic hypoxia and blood flow restriction (BFR) on muscle deoxygenation and RSE performance. Twelve healthy young men performed a standard RSE training modality (five sets of 10 s maximal sprint with a 60 s rest) under four different conditions: (1) normoxic control (NC), normoxia (N, 20.9%) + control BFR (C, 0 mmHg); (2) normoxic BFR (NB), normoxia (N, 20.9%) + BFR (B, 140 mmHg); (3) hypoxic control (HC), hypoxia (H, 13.7%) + control BFR (C, 0 mmHg); and (4) hypoxic BFR (HB): hypoxia (H, 13.7%) + BFR (B, 140 mmHg). BFR was only administered during the rest period of the respective RSE trials. In the local exercising muscles, muscle oxygen saturation (Sm O 2 $\textit{Sm}{O}_{2}$ ) and neuromuscular activity were measured using near-infrared spectroscopy and surface electromyography, respectively. SmO2 was lower in systemic hypoxia conditions relative to normoxia conditions (P < 0.05). A rther decrease in SmO2 was observed in HB relative to HC (Set 1: HC 70.0 ± 17.5 vs. HB 57.4 ± 11.3%, P = 0.001; Set 4: HC 67.5 ± 14.6 vs. HB 57.0 ± 12.0%, P = 0.013; Set 5: HC 61.0 ± 15.3 vs. HB 47.7 ± 11.9%, P < 0.001). No differences in RSE performance were observed between any of the conditions (P > 0.05). Interestingly, an elevated neuromuscular activity was seen in response to the BFR, particularly during conditions of systemic hypoxia (P < 0.05). Thus, RSE with BFR administered during rest periods under systemic hypoxia led to severe local hypoxia without compromising training workload.

Acute effects of resistance exercise with blood flow restriction on cardiovascular response: a meta-analysis

Aim: To compare the acute effects of low-load resistance training associated with blood flow restriction (LLRT-BFR) with low-load resistance training (LLRT) and high-load resistance training (HLRT) on cardiovascular outcomes in healthy individuals. Methods: This review was registered and the studies were selected using seven databases. Randomized controlled clinical trials were included that evaluated LLRT-BFR compared with LLRT and HLRT in young individuals for the cardiovascular outcomes. Results: 19 studies were included. In the comparison of LLRT-BFR with HLRT, there were significant differences for cardiac output and heart rate - with reduced values and in favor of LLRT-BFR. Conclusion: There are no greater acute effects of the addition of blood flow restriction, with the exception of the reduction in cardiac output and heart rate for LLRT-BFR compared with HLRT.

Exercise-induced hypoalgesia and pain reduction following blood flow restriction: A brief review

OBJECTIVE

To review past literature regarding exercise-induced hypoalgesia and pain reduction following blood flow restriction interventions, and to discuss potential mechanisms as well as future considerations towards the efficacy of blood flow restriction in pain reduction following exercise.

METHODS

To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to include acute exercise, or long-term training interventions, with blood flow restriction, along with including pre and post intervention pain measurements.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among these 13 studies, 3 studies examined exercise-induced hypoalgesia after an acute bout of resistance exercise with blood flow restriction, and 10 studies investigated pain reduction following long-term blood flow restriction training.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing literature suggests that low load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction may serve as an effective pain management method for those who are unable or unwilling to train with high loads. Several potential mechanisms have been suggested, however, the roles of these mechanisms are still unclear and require further clarification. Future research should consider implementing different methods of blood flow restriction application, and research study design to clarify the utility and efficacy of blood flow restriction as a pain management tool, by itself or in combination with exercise.

Acute cardiovascular response to unilateral, bilateral, and alternating resistance exercise with blood flow restriction

AIM

Blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise is a common alternative to traditional high-load resistance exercise used to increase muscle size and strength. Some populations utilizing BFR at a low load may wish to limit their cardiovascular response to exercise. Different contraction patterns may attenuate the cardiovascular response, but this has not been compared using BFR.

PURPOSE

To compare the cardiovascular response to unilateral (UNI), bilateral (BIL), and alternating (ALT) BFR exercise contraction patterns.

METHODS

Twenty healthy participants performed four sets (30 s rest) of knee extensions to failure, using 30% one-repetition maximum, 40% arterial occlusion pressure, and each of the three contraction patterns (on different days, at the same time of day, separated by 2-10 days, randomized). Cardiovascular responses, presented as pre- to post-exercise mean changes (SD), were measured using pulse wave analysis and analyzed with Bayesian RMANOVA.

RESULTS

ALT caused greater changes in: aortic systolic [ΔmmHg: ALT = 21(8); UNI = 13(11); BIL = 15(8); BF₁₀ = 29.599], diastolic [ΔmmHg: ALT = 13(8); UNI = 7(11); BIL = 8(8); BF₁₀ = 5.175], and mean arterial [ΔmmHg: ALT = 19(8); UNI = 11(11); BIL = 13(7); BF₁₀ = 48.637] blood pressures. Aortic [ΔmmHg bpm: ALT = 4945(2340); UNI = 3294(1408); BIL = 3428 (1461); BF₁₀ = 113.659] and brachial [ΔmmHg bpm: ALT = 6134(2761); UNI = 4300(1709); BIL = 4487(1701); BF₁₀ = 31.845] rate pressure products, as well as heart rate [Δbpm: ALT = 26(14); UNI = 19(8); BIL = 19(11); BF₁₀ = 5.829] were greatest with ALT. Augmentation index [Δ%: UNI = -6(13); BIL = - 7(11); ALT = - 5(16); BF₁₀ = 0.155] and wave reflection magnitude [Δ%: UNI = - 5(9); BIL = - 4(7); ALT = - 4(7); BF₁₀ = 0.150] were not different.

CONCLUSION

Those at risk of a cardiovascular event may choose unilateral or bilateral BFR exercise over alternating until further work determines the degree to which it can be tolerated.