The impact of cuff width and biological sex on cuff preference and the perceived discomfort to blood-flow-restricted arm exercise

The Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Aerobic Exercise on Body Composition, Muscle Strength, Blood Biomarkers, and Cardiovascular Function: A Narrative Review

Blood flow restriction exercise has emerged as a promising alternative, particularly for elderly individuals and those unable to participate in high-intensity exercise. However, existing research has predominantly focused on blood flow restriction resistance exercise. There remains a notable gap in understanding the comprehensive effects of blood flow restriction aerobic exercise (BFRAE) on body composition, lipid profiles, glycemic metabolism, and cardiovascular function. This review aims to explore the physiological effects induced by chronic BFRAE. Chronic BFRAE has been shown to decrease fat mass, increase muscle mass, and enhance muscular strength, potentially benefiting lipid profiles, glycemic metabolism, and overall function. Thus, the BFRAE offers additional benefits beyond traditional aerobic exercise effects. Notably, the BFRAE approach may be particularly suitable for individuals with low fitness levels, those prone to injury, the elderly, obese individuals, and those with metabolic disorders.

A Moderate Blood Flow Restriction Pressure Does Not Affect Maximal Strength or Neuromuscular Responses

ABSTRACT

Lubiak, SM, Lawson, JE, Gonzalez Rojas, DH, Proppe, CE, Rivera, PM, Hammer, SM, Trevino, MA, Dinyer-McNeely, TK, Montgomery, TR, Olmos, AA, Sears, KN, Bergstrom, HC, Succi, PJ, Keller, JL, and Hill, EC. A moderate blood flow restriction pressure does not affect maximal strength or neuromuscular responses. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2024-The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) applied at 60% of total arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) on maximal strength. Eleven college-aged female subjects completed two testing sessions of maximal unilateral concentric, isometric, and eccentric leg extension muscle actions performed with and without BFR. Separate 3 (mode [isometric, concentric, eccentric]) × 2 (condition [BFR, no BFR]) × 2 (visit [2, 3]) repeated-measures analysis of variances were used to examine mean differences in maximal strength, neuromuscular function, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and pain. For maximal strength (collapsed across condition and visit), isometric (128.5 ± 22.7 Nm) and eccentric (114.5 ± 35.4 Nm) strength were greater than concentric maximal strength (89.3 ± 22.3 Nm) (p < 0.001-0.041). Muscle excitation relative (%) to isometric non-BFR was greater during the concentric (108.6 ± 31.5%) than during the eccentric (86.7 ± 29.2%) (p = 0.045) assessments but not different than isometric (93.4 ± 17.9%) (p = 0.109) assessments, collapsed across condition and visit. For RPE, there was an interaction such that RPE was greater during non-BFR (4.3 ± 1.7) than during BFR (3.7 ± 1.7) (p = 0.031) during the maximal concentric strength assessments. Furthermore, during maximal strength assessments performed with BFR, isometric RPE (5.8 ± 1.9) was greater than concentric (3.7 ± 1.7) (p = 0.005) and eccentric (4.6 ± 1.9) (p = 0.009) RPE. Finally, pain was greater during the isometric (2.8 ± 2.1 au) than during the concentric (1.8 ± 1.5 au) (p = 0.016), but not eccentric, maximal strength assessments (2.1 ± 1.6 au) (p = 0.126), collapsed across condition and visit. The application of BFR at 60% AOP did not affect concentric, isometric, or eccentric maximal strength or neuromuscular function. Trainers, clinicians, and researchers can prescribe exercise interventions relative to a restricted (when using a moderate AOP) or nonrestricted assessment of maximal strength.

Comparing the acute responses between a manual and automated blood flow restriction system

The purpose of this study was to compare acute responses between manual and automated blood flow restriction (BFR) systems.

Methods

A total of 33 individuals completed this study. On visit 1, arterial occlusion pressure (AOP, mm Hg), cardiovascular responses, and discomfort (RPE-D) were measured with each BFR system at rest. On visit 2, unilateral bicep curls were completed [30% one-repetition maximum; 50% AOP] with one system per arm. Muscle thickness (MT, cm) and maximal force (N) were assessed before (pre), immediately (post-0), 5 min (post-5), and 10 min (post-10) post-exercise. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE-E) and ratings of perceived discomfort (RPE-D) were assessed throughout the exercise. AOP and repetitions were compared with Bayesian paired t-tests. Other outcomes were compared with Bayesian RMANOVAs. BF10 represents the likelihood of the best model vs. the null. The results are presented as mean ± SD.

Results

Supine cardiovascular responses and RPE-D were similar for manual and automated (all BF10 ≤ 0.2). Supine AOP for manual (157 ± 20) was higher than that of automated (142 ± 17; BF10 = 44496.0), but similar while standing (manual: 141 ± 17; automated: 141 ± 22; BF10 = 0.2). MT (time, BF10 = 6.047e + 40) increased from Pre (3.9 ± 0.7) to Post-0 (4.4 ± 0.8; BF10 = 2.969e + 28), with Post-0 higher than Post-5 (4.3 ± 0.8) and Post-10 (4.3 ± 0.8; both BF10 ≥ 275.2). Force (time, BF10 = 1.246e + 29) decreased from Pre (234.5 ± 79.2) to Post-0 (149.8 ± 52.3; BF10 = 2.720e + 22) and increased from Post-0 to Post-5 (193.3 ± 72.7; BF10 = 1.744e + 13), with Post-5 to Post-10 (194.0 ± 70.6; BF10 = 0.2) being similar. RPE-E increased over sets. RPE-D was lower for manual than automated. Repetitions per set were higher for manual (Set 1: 37 ± 18; Set 4: 9 ± 5) than automated (Set 1: 30 ± 7; Set 4: 7 ± 3; all BF10 ≥ 9.7).

Conclusion

Under the same relative pressure, responses are mostly similar between BFR systems, although a manual system led to lower exercise discomfort and more repetitions.

Measurement of arterial occlusion pressure using straight and curved blood flow restriction cuffs

Arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) is influenced by the characteristics of the cuff used to measure AOP. Doppler ultrasound was used to measure AOP of the brachial and superficial femoral arteries using straight and curved blood flow restriction cuffs in 21 males and 21 females. Vessel diameter and blood flow were evaluated as independent predictors of AOP. Overall, there were no significant differences in AOP when using the straight and curved cuffs in the brachial (129 mmHg vs. 128 mmHg) or superficial femoral artery (202 mmHg vs. 200 mmHg), respectively. Overall, AOP was greater (p < 0.05) in males than in females in the arm (135 mmHg, 123 mmHg) and leg (211 mmHg, 191 mmHg). Brachial (0.376 mm, 0.323 mm) and superficial femoral (0.547 mm, 0.486 mm) arteries were larger (p = 0.016) in males than in females, respectively. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and arm circumference were predictive of brachial artery AOP, whereas SBP, diastolic blood pressure, thigh circumference, and vessel diameter were predictive of superficial femoral artery AOP. Straight and curved cuffs are efficacious in the measurement of AOP in the arm and leg. Differences in vessel size may contribute to sex differences in AOP but this requires further investigation.

The Impact of Different Ischemic Preconditioning Pressures on Pain Sensitivity and Resistance Exercise Performance

ABSTRACT

Kataoka, R, Song, JS, Yamada, Y, Hammert, WB, Seffrin, A, Spitz, RW, Wong, V, Kang, A, and Loenneke, JP. The impact of different ischemic preconditioning pressures on pain sensitivity and resistance exercise performance. J Strength Cond Res 38(5): 864-872, 2024-To determine (a) the impact of ischemic preconditioning pressures (applied as a % of arterial occlusion pressure [AOP]) on pressure pain threshold (PPT) and resistance exercise performance and (b) whether changes in performance could be explained by changes in PPT. Subjects ( n = 39) completed 4 protocols in a randomized order: (a) ischemic preconditioning (IPC) at 110% AOP (IPC 110%), (b) IPC at 150% AOP (IPC 150%), (c) IPC at 10% AOP (Sham), and (d) time-matched control (CON). Each protocol included 4 cycles of 5 minutes of occlusion followed by 5 minutes of reperfusion. Pressure pain threshold was taken before and after. Discomfort ratings were given at the end of each cycle. Every visit finished with 2 sets of 75-second maximal isokinetic unilateral elbow flexion or extension. Overall, IPC 110% and IPC 150% resulted in similar increases in PPT relative to CON [110%: difference of 0.36 (0.18, 0.54) kg·m -2 ; 150%: difference of 0.377 (0.15, 0.59) kg·m -2 ] and Sham. Both resulted in greater discomfort than Sham and CON, with IPC 150% inducing greater discomfort than IPC 110% (BF 10 : 14.74). There were no differences between the conditions for total work (BF 10 : 0.23), peak torque (BF 10 : 0.035), or average power (BF 10 : 0.159). We did not find evidence that PPT mediated performance. We did not detect changes in performance with 2 different relative pressures greater than AOP. Our mean applied pressures were lower than those used previously. There might be a minimal level of pressure (e.g., >150% of AOP) that is required to induce ergogenic effects of ischemic preconditioning.

Measurements of Arterial Occlusion Pressure Using Hand-Held Devices

ABSTRACT

Vehrs, PR, Reynolds, S, Allen, J, Barrett, R, Blazzard, C, Burbank, T, Hart, H, Kasper, N, Lacey, R, Lopez, D, and Fellingham, GW. Measurements of arterial occlusion pressure using hand-held devices. J Strength Cond Res 38(5): 873-880, 2024-Arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) of the brachial artery was measured simultaneously using Doppler ultrasound (US), a hand-held Doppler (HHDOP), and a pulse oximeter (PO) in the dominant (DOM) and nondominant (NDOM) arms of males ( n = 21) and females ( n = 23) using continuous (CONT) and incremental (INCR) cuff inflation protocols. A mixed-model analysis of variance revealed significant ( p < 0.05) overall main effects between AOP measured using a CONT (115.7 ± 10.9) or INCR (115.0 ± 11.5) cuff inflation protocol; between AOP measured using US (116.3 ± 11.2), HHDOP (115.4 ± 11.2), and PO (114.4 ± 11.2); and between males (120.7 ± 10.6) and females (110.5 ± 9.4). The small overall difference (1.81 ± 3.3) between US and PO measures of AOP was significant ( p < 0.05), but the differences between US and HHDOP and between HHDOP and PO measures of AOP were not significant. There were no overall differences in AOP between the DOM and NDOM arms. Trial-to-trial variance in US measurements of AOP was not significant when using either cuff inflation protocol but was significant when using HHDOP and PO and a CONT cuff inflation protocol. Bland-Altman plots revealed reasonable limits of agreement for both HHDOP and PO measures of AOP. The small differences in US, HHDOP, and PO measurements of AOP when using CONT or INCR cuff inflation protocols are of minimal practical importance. The choice of cuff inflation protocol is one of personal preference. Hand-held Doppler of PO can be used to assess AOP before using blood flow restriction during exercise.

Use of a handheld Doppler to measure brachial and femoral artery occlusion pressure

Objective: Measurement of arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) is essential to the safe and effective use of blood flow restriction during exercise. Use of a Doppler ultrasound (US) is the "gold standard" method to measure AOP. Validation of a handheld Doppler (HHDOP) device to measure AOP could make the measurement of AOP more accessible to practitioners in the field. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of AOP measurements of the brachial and femoral arteries using an HHDOP. Methods: We simultaneously measured AOP using a "gold standard" US and a HHDOP in the dominant and non-dominant arms (15 males; 15 females) and legs (15 males; 15 females). Results: There were no differences in limb circumference or limb volume in the dominant and non-dominant arms and legs between males and females or between the dominant and non-dominant arms and legs of males and females. The differences between US and HHDOP measures of AOP in the dominant and non-dominant arms and legs were either not significant or small (<10 mmHg) and of little practical importance. There were no sex differences in AOP measurements of the femoral artery (p > 0.60). Bland-Altman analysis yielded an average bias (-0.65 mmHg; -2.93 mmHg) and reasonable limits of agreement (±5.56 mmHg; ±5.58 mmHg) between US and HHDOP measures of brachial and femoral artery AOP, respectively. Conclusion: HHDOP yielded acceptable measures of AOP of the brachial and femoral arteries and can be used to measure AOP by practitioners for the safe and effective use of blood flow restriction. Due to the potential differences in AOP between dominant and non-dominant limbs, AOP should be measured in each limb.

Potential considerations with estimating blood flow restriction pressure in the lower body using a narrower cuff

Blood flow restriction pressures are typically set as a percentage of the arterial occlusion pressure. For those who do not have the ability to measure the arterial occlusion pressure, estimation equations are available. However, notable considerations are needed when estimating pressure with a narrow cuff (5 cm) in the lower body. A previously published equation in this journal was developed but was created only using 55% of the sample because the arterial occlusion of the others could not be obtained within the manufacturer's pressure limit. The purpose of this article was twofold: (1) to investigate how previous studies have implemented the equation and (2) to highlight potential concerns of using this equation. Two databases were used to locate articles that used the equation from Loenneke et al. (2015). We found that this equation had been cited 10 times to estimate arterial occlusion pressure with some notable concerns. Some did not use a 5 cm wide cuff, while others used it for participants who had arterial occlusion pressures exceeding 300 mmHg. To highlight the latter, we also applied the Loenneke et al. (2015) lower body equation to participants with arterial occlusion pressures known to exceed 300 mmHg to demonstrate potential concerns. This retrospective analysis found that 52% of the sample with known pressures over 300 mmHg (40 out of 77) would be estimated below 300 mmHg. This paper highlighted important considerations for those trying to estimate arterial occlusion pressure in the lower body with a narrow cuff (5 cm).

Blood flow restriction during high-intensity interval cycling exacerbates psychophysiological responses to a greater extent in females than males

This study aimed to characterize neuromuscular, perceptual, and cardiorespiratory responses to high-intensity interval training (HIIT) with superimposed blood flow restriction in males and females. Twenty-four, healthy individuals (n = 12 females) completed two cycling HIIT protocols to task failure (1-min work phases at 90% of peak power output interspersed by 1-min rest phases). The blood flow restriction (BFR) and control (CON) protocols were identical except for the presence and absence of BFR during rest phases, respectively. The interpolated twitch technique, including maximal voluntary isometric knee extension (MVC) and femoral nerve electrical stimuli, was performed at baseline, every six intervals, and task failure. Perceptual and cardiorespiratory responses were recorded every three intervals and continuously during exercise, respectively. Bayesian inference was used to obtain the joint posterior distribution for all parameters and evidence of an effect was determined via the marginal posterior probability (PP). The BFR shortened task duration by 57.3% compared with CON (PP > 0.99), without a sex difference. The application of BFR exacerbated the rate of decline in neuromuscular measures (MVC and twitch force output), increase of perceptual responses (perceived effort, pain, dyspnea, fatigue), and development of cardiorespiratory parameters (minute ventilation and heart rate), compared with CON (PP > 0.95). In addition, BFR exacerbated the neuromuscular, perceptual, and cardiorespiratory responses to a greater extent in females than males (PP > 0.99). Our results suggest that superimposition of blood flow restriction exacerbates psychophysiological responses to a HIIT protocol to a greater extent in females than males.NEW & NOTEWORTHY To our knowledge, no study has explored sex differences in the neuromuscular, perceptual, and cardiorespiratory indices characterizing exercise tolerance during high-intensity interval training (HIIT) with blood flow restriction (BFR) applied only during rest periods. Our results suggest that BFR elicited a decline in exercise performance that could be attributed to integration of psychophysiological responses. However, this integration was sex-dependent where females demonstrated an exacerbated rate of change in these responses compared with males.

The Effect of Increasing Blood Flow Restriction Pressure When the Contractions Are Already Occlusive

CONTEXT

Blood flow restricted exercise involves the use of external pressure to enhance fatigue and augment exercise adaptations. The mechanisms by which blood flow restricted exercise limits muscular endurance are not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how increasing blood flow restriction pressure impacts local muscular endurance, discomfort, and force steadiness when the contractions are already occlusive.

DESIGN

Within-participant, repeated-measures crossover design.

SETTING

University laboratory.

PATIENTS

A total of 22 individuals (13 males and 9 females).

INTERVENTION

Individuals performed a contraction at 30% of maximal isometric elbow flexion force for as long as possible. One arm completed the contraction with 100% of arterial occlusion pressure applied, while the other arm had 150% of arterial occlusion pressure applied. At the end of the protocol, individuals were asked to rate their perceived discomfort.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Time to task failure, discomfort, and force steadiness.

RESULTS

Individuals had a longer time to task failure when performing the 100% arterial occlusion condition compared with the 150% arterial occlusion pressure condition (time to task failure = 82.4 vs 70.8 s; Bayes factors = 5.77). There were no differences in discomfort between the 100% and 150% conditions (median discomfort = 5.5 vs 6; Bayes factors = 0.375) nor were there differences in force steadiness (SD of force output 3.16 vs 3.31 N; Bayes factors = 0.282).

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study suggest that, even when contractions are already occlusive, increasing the restriction pressure reduces local muscle endurance but does not impact discomfort or force steadiness. This provides an indication that mechanisms other than the direct alteration of blood flow are contributing to the increased fatigue with added restrictive pressure. Future studies are needed to examine neural mechanisms that may explain this finding.

The impact of cuff width on perceptual responses during and following blood flow restricted walking exercise

INTRODUCTION

An appropriate comparison of different cuff widths during blood flow restricted exercise requires that the cuffs are inflated to the same relative pressures. Narrow cuffs tend to be preferred and may reduce discomfort when applied during resistance exercise, but whether this is also true during walking exercise remains unknown.

METHODS

Individuals completed two identical walking trials, once with 12-cm wide cuffs and once with 17-cm wide cuffs. Five 2-min walking bouts were completed at a speed of 50 m/min, with a 1-min rest period between sets. The restriction cuffs were inflated to 40% of the individuals' arterial occlusion pressure taken with each respective cuff. Individuals were asked to rate their discomfort, perceived exertion (RPE), and cuff preference.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven individuals completed the study. The 12-cm cuff required a higher occlusion pressure which resulted in a higher absolute pressure applied (58 vs. 52 mm Hg; BF₁₀  = 19 331.897). Whilst there was no difference in RPE values between cuffs (BF₁₀  = 0.474), individuals reported greater discomfort when using the wider cuffs (2.3 vs. 1.7; BF₁₀  = 252.786). The majority of individuals (63%) preferred to use the narrower cuff, whereas fewer preferred the wider cuff (26%) and even fewer did not have a preference (11%).

DISCUSSION

Blood flow restricted walking exercise performed with narrower restriction cuffs appeared to reduce participant discomfort whilst also being preferred over that of wider cuffs. Future studies may wish to test the influence of different restrictive cuff widths on alterations in gait patterns during blood flow restricted walking exercise.

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.

Differences in Femoral Artery Occlusion Pressure between Sexes and Dominant and Non-Dominant Legs

Background and Objectives: Blood flow restriction during low-load exercise stimulates similar muscle adaptations to those normally observed with higher loads. Differences in the arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) between limbs and between sexes are unclear. We compared the AOP of the superficial femoral artery in the dominant and non-dominant legs, and the relationship between blood flow and occlusion pressure in 35 (16 males, 19 females) young adults. Materials and Methods: Using ultrasound, we measured the AOP of the superficial femoral artery in both legs. Blood flow at occlusion pressures ranging from 0% to 100% of the AOP was measured in the dominant leg. Results: There was a significant difference in the AOP between males and females in the dominant (230 ± 41 vs. 191 ± 27 mmHg; p = 0.002) and non-dominant (209 ± 37 vs. 178 ± 21 mmHg; p = 0.004) legs, and between the dominant and non-dominant legs in males (230 ± 41 vs. 209 ± 37 mmHg; p = 0.009) but not females (191 ± 27 vs. 178 ± 21 mmHg; p = 0.053), respectively. Leg circumference was the most influential independent predictor of the AOP. There was a linear relationship between blood flow (expressed as a percentage of unoccluded blood flow) and occlusion pressure (expressed as a percentage of AOP). Conclusions: Arterial occlusion pressure is not always greater in the dominant leg or the larger leg. Practitioners should measure AOP in both limbs to determine if occlusion pressures used during exercise should be limb specific. Occlusion pressures used during blood flow restriction exercise should be chosen carefully.

Potential Implications of Blood Flow Restriction Exercise on Vascular Health: A Brief Review

Blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise (a.k.a. occlusion training) has emerged as a viable surrogate to traditional heavy-load strength rehabilitation training for a broad range of clinical populations including elderly subjects and rehabilitating athletes. A particular benefit of BFR exercise is the lower stress upon the joints as compared to traditional heavy resistance training, with similar gains in muscle strength and size. The application of an inflatable cuff to the proximal portion of the limbs increases the pressure required for venous return, leading to changes in venous compliance and wall tension. However, it is not known if long-term benefits of BFR exercise on muscle strength and size outweigh potential short and long-term complications on vascular health. BFR exercise could lead to clinical deterioration of the vasculature along with sympathetic overactivity and decreased vascular function associated with retrograde shear stress. This raises a fundamental question: Given the concern that excessive restriction could cause injury to endothelial cells and might cause detrimental effects on endothelial function, even in healthy individuals, should we critically re-evaluate the safety of this method for the general population? From this perspective, the purpose of this manuscript is to review the effects of BFR exercise on vascular function, and to provide relevant insights for training practice as well as future directions for research.

Blood Flow Restriction Exercise: Effects of Sex, Cuff Width, and Cuff Pressure on Perceived Lower Body Discomfort

Narrow cuffs cause less discomfort than wide cuffs immediately following elbow flexion exercise in combination with blood flow restriction, possibly due to a balling up effect of the bicep underneath the cuff. In this study, we sought to examine the impact of cuff width, sex, and pressure on perceived discomfort in the quadriceps, following knee extensions. One hundred participants completed three separate experiments. In Experiment 1, we compared participants' discomfort at rest after using a 5 and a 12 cm cuff. In Experiment 2, we compared the discomfort from these two cuffs after four sets of exercise. In Experiment 3, we used the same exercise protocol as in Experiment 2, but we compared the discomfort between a 12 cm cuff inflated to an inappropriate pressure and a 12 cm cuff inflated to the recommended pressure. We found no sex differences in Experiments 1 and 3. In Experiment 1, the narrow cuff had higher discomfort (16 vs 12 AU). In Experiment 2, men reported higher discomfort than women, with no discomfort differences related to cuff width, though narrow cuffs were most preferred. In Experiment 3, cuffs inflated to a pressure intended for narrow cuffs were associated with higher discomfort, and participants preferred to use it less. In summary, we found no strong evidence for discomfort differences due to cuff width. There was some indication that participants preferred narrow cuffs with pressures inflated to the recommended relative pressure. Muscle shape may influence how cuff width affects discomfort.

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.

Blood Flow Restricted Exercise and Discomfort: A Review

Spitz, RW, Wong, V, Bell, ZW, Viana, RB, Chatakondi, RN, Abe, T, and Loenneke, JP. Blood flow restricted exercise and discomfort: A Review. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-Blood flow restriction exercise involves using a pneumatic cuff or elastic band to restrict arterial inflow into the muscle and block venous return out of the muscle during the exercise bout. The resultant ischemia in conjunction with low-load exercise has shown to be beneficial with increasing muscle size and strength. However, a limitation of using blood flow restriction (BFR) is the accompanying discomfort associated with this type of exercise. Factors that may influence discomfort are applied pressure, width of the cuff, cuff material, sex, and training to failure. The goal of this review was to evaluate the existing literature and elucidate how these factors can be manipulated to reduce discomfort during exercise as well as provide possible directions for future research. Thirty-eight different studies were located investigating BFR and discomfort. It was found that BFR training causes more discomfort than exercise without BFR. However, chronic use of BFR may increase tolerability, but discomfort may still be elevated over traditional non-blood flow restricted exercise. Discomfort can be attenuated by the application of lower applied pressures and stopping short of task failure. Finally, in the upper body, wider cuffs seem to increase ratings of discomfort compared with more narrow cuffs. In conclusion, applying the proper-sized cuff and making the applied pressure relative to both the individual and the cuff applied may attenuate discomfort. Reducing discomfort during exercise may help increase adherence to exercise and rehabilitation programs.