Acute Effects of Resistance Exercise With Continuous and Intermittent Blood Flow Restriction on Hemodynamic Measurements and Perceived Exertion

Upper extremity blood-flow restriction training applied during walking in an adult with a rare form of spina bifida: a case report

INTRODUCTION

Adults with spina bifida have impaired mobility and often rely on assistive devices like crutches for walking, which exert high torque demands on the upper extremities. Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) may improve strength and gait measures by increasing intensity of training when applied during walking for individuals with limited walking tolerance. However, no studies have investigated the application of BFRT to the upper extremities for individuals who rely on crutches for walking.

CASE DESCRIPTION

This case describes a 29-year-old female with diastematomyelia, a rare form of spina bifida, who had lower extremity weakness and reduced gait capacity requiring crutches. The patient underwent 8 weeks of bilateral upper extremity BFRT during walking. The BFRT program consisted of 4 bouts of walking per session, each lasting 3 minutes with 35-50% limb occlusion pressure. Outcomes measured at baseline and 8 weeks included the 10 Meter Walk Test (10MWT), Timed Up and Go (TUG), 5 Times Sit-Stand Test (5×STS), hand-held dynamometry of 8 upper extremity muscles, and a BFRT satisfaction questionnaire.

OUTCOMES

After 8 weeks, she demonstrated improvements on the 10MWT (0.15 m/s, 23%), TUG (-3.4s, 20%), 5×STS (-3.4 s, -22%), and upper extremity strength improvements ranged from 8-79% (2.8-6.7 kg). There were no adverse events related to the intervention and satisfaction was high.

DISCUSSION

Bilateral upper extremity BFRT was safely applied during walking in an adult with spina bifida. The improvements in strength and functional mobility warrant future study among individuals who rely on upper extremity strength for ambulation.

Autonomic modulation and skeletal muscle oxygenation with intermittent low-load blood flow restriction knee extension

Introduction

This investigation determined if an acute bout of low-load knee extension (KE) with intermittent blood flow restriction (BFR) influenced autonomic modulation and skeletal muscle oxygenation (SmO2%).

Methods

Fourteen physically active males completed three different sessions: one-repetition maximum (1RM), KE with BFR (BFR-KE) at 20% 1RM (cuff pressure=143 ± 13 mmHg), and KE with free blood flow at 20% 1RM (Control-KE). Heart rate variability (HRV) metrics: logarithmically transformed (ln) square root of the mean differences of successive R-R intervals (lnRMSSD), high frequency power (lnHF), and low frequency power (lnLF), as well as SmO2%, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured. Repeated measures analyses of variance were used to analyze HRV metrics and SmO2%, while a paired t-test was used to analyze RPE. A significance level of P < 0.05 was used for analyses.

Results

From baseline to 15 min post-exercise lnRMSSD decreased in both BFR-KE and Control-KE (4.34 ± 0.43-3.75 ± 0.82 ms, P = 0.027). Thereafter, lnRMSSD (+7%), lnHF (+8%), and lnLF (+7%) increased from 15 to 30 min post-exercise in both BFR-KE and Control-KE (P < 0.05). BFR-KE reduced SmO2% in the vastus lateralis compared to Control-KE (36% vs. 53%; P < 0.001). RPE was greater in BFR-KE (7.0 AU) compared to Control-KE (4.5 AU; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Unilateral BFR exercise with individualized cuff pressure and intermittent application facilitated greater localized muscular stress and perceptual effort, but there was no influence of vascular occlusion on post-exercise autonomic modulation compared to volume-matched exercise with free blood flow.

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.

Manipulating Internal and External Loads During Repeated Cycling Sprints: A Comparison of Continuous and Intermittent Blood Flow Restriction

ABSTRACT

Mckee, JR, Girard, O, Peiffer, JJ, and Scott, BR. Manipulating internal and external loads during repeated cycling sprints: A comparison of continuous and intermittent blood flow restriction. J Strength Cond Res 38(1): 47-54, 2024-This study examined the impact of blood flow restriction (BFR) application method (continuous vs. intermittent) during repeated-sprint exercise (RSE) on performance, physiological, and perceptual responses. Twelve adult male semi-professional Australian football players completed 4 RSE sessions (3 × [5 × 5-second maximal sprints:25-second passive recovery], 3-minute rest between the sets) with BFR applied continuously (C-BFR; excluding interset rest periods), intermittently during only sprints (I-BFR WORK ), or intraset rest periods (I-BFR REST ) or not at all (Non-BFR). An alpha level of p < 0.05 was used to determine significance. Mean power output was greater for Non-BFR (  p < 0.001, dz = 1.58 ), I-BFR WORK (  p = 0.002, dz = 0.63 ), and I-BFR REST (  p = 0.003, dz = 0.69 ) than for C-BFR and for Non-BFR (  p = 0.043, dz = 0.55 ) compared with I-BFR REST . Blood lactate concentration (  p = 0.166) did not differ between the conditions. Mean oxygen consumption was higher during Non-BFR (  p < 0.001, dz = 1.29 and 2.31; respectively) and I-BFR WORK ( p < 0.001, dz = 0.74 and 1.63; respectively) than during I-BFR REST and C-BFR and for I-BFR REST (  p = 0.002, dz = 0.57) compared with C-BFR. Ratings of perceived exertion were greater for I-BFR REST (  p = 0.042, dz = 0.51) and C-BFR (  p = 0.011, dz = 0.90) than for Non-BFR and during C-BFR (  p = 0.023, dz = 0.54) compared with I-BFR WORK . Applying C-BFR or I-BFR REST reduced mechanical output and cardiorespiratory demands of RSE and were perceived as more difficult. Practitioners should be aware that BFR application method influences internal and external demands during RSE.

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.

Effects of blood flow restriction training on bone metabolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: The efficacy of low-intensity blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) training programs in bone metabolism remains unclear compared to low-intensity (LI) training and high-intensity (HI) training. The aim of this review was to quantitatively identify the effects of LI-BFR training on changes in bone formation markers (i.e., bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, BALP), bone resorption (i.e., C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen, CTX) and bone mineral density (BMD) compared with conventional resistance training programmes. Additionally, the effectiveness of walking with and without BFR was assessed. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were searched for articles based on eligibility criteria. Review Manager Version 5.4 was used for Meta-analysis. Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was applied to assess the methodological quality of studies. Results: 12 articles were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 378 participants. Meta-results showed that compared with LI training, LI-BFR training induced greater increments in BALP (young adults: MD = 6.70, p < 0.001; old adults: MD = 3.94, p = 0.002), slight increments in BMD (young adults: MD = 0.05, p < 0.00001; old adults: MD = 0.01, p < 0.00001), and greater decrements in CTX (young adults: MD = -0.19, p = 0.15; old adults: MD = -0.07, p = 0.003). Compared with HI training, LI-BFR training produced smaller increments in BALP (young adults: MD = -6.87, p = 0.24; old adults: MD = -0.6, p = 0.58), similar increments in BMD (MD = -0.01, p = 0.76) and similar decrements in CTX (young adults: MD = 0, p = 0.96; old adults: MD = -0.08, p = 0.13). Although there were only two studies on walking training intervention, walking training with BFR had a better effect on bone metabolism than training without BFR. Discussion: In conclusion, LI-BFR training induces greater improvements in bone health than LI training, but is less effective than HI training. Therefore, LI-BFR training may be an effective and efficient way to improve bone health for untrained individuals, older adults, or those undergoing musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Clinical Trial Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42023411837].

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.

The Influence on Post-Activation Potentiation Exerted by Different Degrees of Blood Flow Restriction and Multi-Levels of Activation Intensity

(1) Background: To explore the influence on post-activation potentiation (PAP) when combining different degrees of blood flow restriction (BFR) with multi-levels of resistance training intensity of activation. (2) Purpose: To provide competitive athletes with a more efficient and feasible warm-up program. (3) Study Design: The same batch of subjects performed the vertical jump test of the warm-up procedure under different conditions, one traditional and six BFR procedures. (4) Methods: Participants performed seven counter movement jump (CMJ) tests in random order, including 90% one repetition maximum (1RM) without BFR (CON), and three levels of BFR (30%, 50%, 70%) combined with (30% and 50% 1RM) (BFR-30-30, BFR-30-50, BFR-50-30, BFR-50-50, BFR-70-30 and BFR-70-50). Jump height (H), mean power output (P), peak vertical ground reaction force (vGRF), and the mean rate of force development (RFD) were recorded and measured. (5) Results: Significantly increasing results were observed in: jump height: CON (8 min), BFR-30-30 (0, 4 min), BFR-30-50 (4, 8 min), BFR-50-30 (8 min), BFR-50-50 (4, 8 min), BFR-70-30 (8 min), (p < 0.05); and power output: CON (8 min), BFR-30-30 (0, 4 min), BFR-30-50 (4 min), BFR-50-30 (8 min), BFR-50-50 (4, 8 min) (p < 0.05); vGRF: CON (8 min), BFR-30-30 (0, 4 min), BFR-30-50 (4, 8 min), BFR-50-30 (4 min), BFR-50-50 (4, 8 min) (p < 0.05); RFD: CON (8 min), BFR-30-30 (0, 4 min), BFR-30-50 (4 min), BFR-50-30 (4 min), BFR-50-50 (4 min) (p < 0.05). (5) Conclusions: low to moderate degrees of BFR procedures produced a similar PAP to traditional activation. Additionally, BFR-30-30, BFR-30-50, and BFR-50-50 were longer at PAP duration in comparison with CON.

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.

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.

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 Systemic Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training has been reported to have significant benefits on local skeletal muscle including increasing local muscle mass, strength, and endurance while exercising with lower resistance. As a result, patients unable to perform traditional resistance training may benefit from this technique. However, it is unclear what effects BFR may have on other body systems, such as the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems. It is important to explore the systemic effects of BFR training to ensure it is safe for use in physical therapy.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the systemic effects of blood flow restriction training when combined with exercise intervention.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

Three literature searches were performed: June 2019, September 2019, and January 2020; using MedLine, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Cochrane Reviews and CINAHL Complete. Inclusion criteria included: at least one outcome measure addressing a cardiovascular, endocrinological, systemic or proximal musculoskeletal, or psychosocial outcome, use of clinically available blood flow restriction equipment, use of either resistance or aerobic training in combination with BFR, and use of quantitative measures. Exclusion criteria for articles included only measuring local or distal musculoskeletal changes due to BFR training, examining only passive BFR or ischemic preconditioning, articles not originating from a scholarly peer-reviewed journal, CEBM level of evidence less than two, or PEDro score less than four. Articles included in this review were analyzed with the CEBM levels of evidence hierarchy and PEDro scale.

RESULTS

Thirty-five articles were included in the review. PEDro scores ranged between 4 and 8, and had CEBM levels of evidence of 1 and 2. Common systems studied included cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, endocrine, and psychosocial. This review found positive or neutral effects of blood flow restriction training on cardiovascular, endocrinological, musculoskeletal, and psychosocial outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although BFR prescription parameters and exercise interventions varied, the majority of included articles reported BFR training to produce favorable or non-detrimental effects to the cardiovascular, endocrine, and musculoskeletal systems. This review also found mixed effects on psychosocial outcomes when using BFR. Additionally, this review found no detrimental outcomes directly attributed to blood flow restriction training on the test subjects or outcomes tested. Thus, BFR training may be an effective intervention for patient populations that are unable to perform traditional exercise training with positive effects other than traditional distal muscle hypertrophy and strength and without significant drawbacks to the individual.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1b.

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.

Similar Morphological and Functional Training Adaptations Occur Between Continuous and Intermittent Blood Flow Restriction

ABSTRACT

Davids, CJ, Raastad, T, James, L, Gajanand, T, Smith, E, Connick, M, McGorm, H, Keating, S, Coombes, JS, Peake, JM, and Roberts, LA. Similar morphological and functional training adaptations occur between continuous and intermittent blood flow restriction. J Strength Cond Res 35(7): 1784-1793, 2021-The aim of the study was to compare skeletal muscle morphological and functional outcomes after low-load resistance training using 2 differing blood flow restriction (BFR) protocols. Recreationally active men and women (n = 42 [f = 21], 24.4 ± 4.4 years) completed 21 sessions over 7 weeks of load-matched and volume-matched low-load resistance training (30% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) with either (a) no BFR (CON), (b) continuous BFR (BFR-C, 60% arterial occlusion pressure [AOP]), or (c) intermittent BFR (BFR-I, 60% AOP). Muscle mass was assessed using peripheral quantitative computed tomography before and after training. Muscular strength, endurance, and power were determined before and after training by assessing isokinetic dynamometry, 1RM, and jump performance. Ratings of pain and effort were taken in the first and final training session. An alpha level of p < 0.05 was used to determine significance. There were no between-group differences for any of the morphological or functional variables. The muscle cross sectional area (CSA) increased pre-post training (p = 0.009; CON: 1.6%, BFR-C: 1.1%, BFR-I: 2.2%). Maximal isometric strength increased pre-post training (p < 0.001; CON: 9.6%, BFR-C: 14.3%, BFR-I: 19.3%). Total work performed during an isokinetic endurance task increased pre-post training (p < 0.001, CON: 3.6%, BFR-C: 9.6%, BFR-I: 11.3%). Perceptions of pain (p = 0.026) and effort (p = 0.033) during exercise were higher with BFR-C; however, these reduced with training (p = 0.005-0.034). Overall, these data suggest that when 30% 1RM loads are used with a frequency of 3 times per week, the addition of BFR does not confer superior morphological or functional adaptations in recreationally active individuals. Furthermore, the additional metabolic stress that is proposed to occur with a continuous BFR protocol does not seem to translate into proportionally greater training adaptations. The current findings promote the use of both intermittent BFR and low-load resistance training without BFR as suitable alternative training methods to continuous BFR. These approaches may be practically applicable for those less tolerable to pain and discomfort associated with ischemia during exercise.

The Effects of Blood Flow Restriction on Muscle Activation and Hypoxia in Individuals With Chronic Ankle Instability

CONTEXT

Muscle dysfunction is common in patients with chronic ankle instability (CAI). Blood flow restriction (BFR) may enhance muscle responses during exercise and provide an opportunity to enhance muscle adaptations to ankle rehabilitation exercises; however, there is no evidence examining the effect of BFR on muscle function in CAI patients.

OBJECTIVE

Examine the effects of BFR on muscle activation and oxygen saturation during submaximal ankle eversion and dorsiflexion exercises in individuals with CAI.

DESIGN

Cross-over study design.

SETTING

Laboratory setting. Patients (or Other Participants): Nineteen young adults with a history of CAI.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants performed 4 sets (30, 15, 15, and 15) of eversion and dorsiflexion resistance exercises at 30% of maximum voluntary isometric contraction during 2 conditions, BFR and control. For BFR, a cuff was applied above the knee at 80% of blood flow occlusion. For control, the cuff was not inflated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Fibularis longus and tibialis anterior electromyography muscle activation, lower-leg muscle oxygen saturation, and ratings of perceived exertion were recorded during exercises.

RESULTS

Average grand mean muscle activation was 5.6% greater during eversion (P = .03) and 7.7% greater during dorsiflexion (P = .01) resistance exercises with BFR compared with control; however, the magnitudes of the effects of BFR were only clinically important during the dorsiflexion exercises. Lower-leg muscle oxygen saturation was 31% to 44% lower (P < .001) during BFR exercises. Ratings of perceived exertion were significantly higher during BFR exercises (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Greater muscle activation and hypoxia were present during submaximal resistance exercise with BFR in participants with CAI. Greater muscle activation and hypoxia during BFR exercises may be important acute responses mediating the training-related muscle adaptations that have been observed with BFR. The presence of these acute responses in CAI patients supports further research examining BFR as a potential ankle rehabilitation tool.

Is there rationale for the cuff pressures prescribed for blood flow restriction exercise? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Blood flow restriction exercise has increasingly broad applications among healthy and clinical populations. Ensuring the technique is applied in a safe, controlled, and beneficial way for target populations is essential. Individualized cuff pressures are a favored method for achieving this. However, there remains marked inconsistency in how individualized cuff pressures are applied.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the cuff pressures used in the broader blood flow restriction exercise literature, and determine whether there is clear justification for the choice of pressure prescribed.

METHODS

Studies were included in this review from database searches if they employed an experimental design using original data, involved either acute or chronic exercise using blood flow restriction, and they assessed limb or arterial occlusion pressure to determine an individualized cuff pressure. Methodologies of the studies were evaluated using a bespoke quality assessment tool.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Individualized cuff pressures ranged from 30% to 100% arterial occlusion pressure. Only 7 out of 52 studies attempted to justify the individualized cuff pressure applied during exercise. The mean quality rating for all studies was 11.1 ± 1.2 out of 13.

CONCLUSIONS

The broader blood flow restriction exercise literature uses markedly heterogeneous prescription variables despite using individualized cuff pressures. This is problematic in the absence of any clear justification for the individualized cuff pressures selected. Systematically measuring and reporting all relevant acute responses and training adaptations to the full spectrum of BFR pressures alongside increased clarity around the methodology used during blood flow restriction exercise is paramount.

Chronic Blood Flow Restriction Exercise Improves Objective Physical Function: A Systematic Review

Background: Blood flow restriction or KAATSU exercise training is associated with greater muscle mass and strength increases than non-blood flow restriction equivalent exercise. Blood flow restriction exercise has been proposed as a possible alternative to more physically demanding exercise prescriptions (such as high-load/high-intensity resistance training) in a range of clinical and chronic disease populations. While the maintenance of muscle mass and size with reduced musculoskeletal tissue loading appeals in many of these physically impaired populations, there remains a disconnect between some of the desired clinical measures for chronic disease populations and those commonly measured in the literature examining blood flow restriction exercise. While strength does play a vital role in physical function, task-specific objective measures of physical function indicative of activities of daily living are often more clinically relevant and applicable for evaluating the success of medical and surgical interventions or monitoring age- and disease-related physical decline.

Objective: To determine whether exercise interventions utilizing blood flow restriction are able to improve objective measures of physical function indicative of activities of daily living.

Methods: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Springer identified 13 randomized control trials utilizing an exercise intervention combined with blood flow restriction, while measuring at least one objective measure of physical function. Participants were ≥18 years of age. Systematic review of the literature and quality assessment of the included studies used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk bias.

Results: Data from 13 studies with a total of 332 participants showed blood flow restriction exercise, regardless of modality, most notably increased performance on the 30 s sit-to-stand and timed up and go tests, and generally improved physical function on other tests including walking tests, variations of sit-to-stand tests, and balance, jumping, and stepping tests.

Conclusions: From the evidence available, blood flow restriction exercise of multiple modalities improved objective measures of physical function indicative of activities of daily living.

Strengthening the Brain-Is Resistance Training with Blood Flow Restriction an Effective Strategy for Cognitive Improvement?

Aging is accompanied by a decrease in physical capabilities (e.g., strength loss) and cognitive decline. The observed bidirectional relationship between physical activity and brain health suggests that physical activities could be beneficial to maintain and improve brain functioning (e.g., cognitive performance). However, the exercise type (e.g., resistance training, endurance training) and their exercise variables (e.g., load, duration, frequency) for an effective physical activity that optimally enhance cognitive performance are still unknown. There is growing evidence that resistance training induces substantial brain changes which contribute to improved cognitive functions. A relative new method in the field of resistance training is blood flow restriction training (BFR). While resistance training with BFR is widely studied in the context of muscular performance, this training strategy also induces an activation of signaling pathways associated with neuroplasticity and cognitive functions. Based on this, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that resistance training with BFR is a promising new strategy to boost the effectiveness of resistance training interventions regarding cognitive performance. To support our hypothesis, we provide rationales of possible adaptation processes induced by resistance training with BFR. Furthermore, we outline recommendations for future studies planning to investigate the effects of resistance training with BFR on cognition.

Effect of one bout of local vibration exercise with blood flow restriction on neuromuscular and hormonal responses

This study aimed to investigate the effects of single local vibration (LV) with and without blood flow restriction (BFR) on muscle activity and hormonal responses. A total of 12 physically inactive males were exposed to 10 sets of intermittent LV (35-40 Hz) on unilateral mid-quadriceps in the supine lying position and LV + BFR (inflated to 140 mmHg) sessions in a repeated-measures randomized crossover design, with a 1-week interval separating the sessions. The results indicated that the electromyography values from the rectus femoris during LV + BFR were greater than those during LV (p < 0.05). LV + BFR caused a minor increase in the lactate (LA) response (p < 0.05); LV with or without BFR failed to elicit change in growth hormone (GH) and testosterone (T) levels (p > 0.05). Cortisol (C) levels were decreased postexercise in both the sessions (p < 0.05). In conclusion, BFR elicited higher increase in muscle activity and metabolic response, but it did not induce hormonal responses. The exposure of LV and LV + BFR may only have a relief effect as detected by the reduction in C levels, probably because the LV did not elicit sufficient stimulus to the muscles.