Effects of short-term repeated sprint training in hypoxia or with blood flow restriction on response to exercise

Effects of blood flow restriction training on physical fitness among athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) is an effective, scientific and safe training method, but its effect on the overall quality of athletes remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to clarify the effects of BFRT on the physical fitness among athletes. Based on the PRISMA guidelines, searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and SCOUPS, the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool was used to assess methodological quality, and RevMan 5.4 and STATA 15.0 software were used to analyze the data. A meta-analysis of 28 studies with a total sample size of 542 athletes aged 14-26 years and assessed as low risk for quality was performed. Our results revealed that the BFRT intervention had small to large improvements in the athletes' strength (ES = 0.74-1.03), power (ES = 0.46), speed (ES = 0.54), endurance (ES = 1.39-1.40), body composition (ES = 0.28-1.23), while there was no significant effect on body mass (p > 0.05). Subgroup analyses revealed that moderator variables (training duration, frequency, load, cuff pressure, and pressurization time) also had varying degrees of effect on athletes' physical fitness parameters. In conclusion, BFRT had a positive effect on the physical fitness parameters of the athletes, with significantly improved strength, power, speed, endurance and body composition, but not body mass parameters. When the training frequency ≥ 3 times/week, cuff pressure ≥ 160 mmHg, and pressurization time ≥ 10 min, the BFRT group was more favorable for the improvement of physical fitness parameters.

Repeated-Sprint Training With Blood-Flow Restriction Improves Repeated-Sprint Ability Similarly to Unrestricted Training at Reduced External Loads

PURPOSE

This study examined performance and physiological adaptations following 3 weeks of repeated-sprint training (RST) with blood-flow restriction (BFR) or without (non-BFR).

METHODS

Twenty-six semiprofessional and amateur adult male team-sport players were assessed for repeated-sprint ability, anaerobic capacity, leg lean mass, neuromuscular function, and maximal aerobic capacity before and after RST. Participants completed 9 cycling RST sessions (3 sets of 5-7 × 5-s sprints, 25-s passive recovery, 3-min rest) over a 3-week period with BFR or non-BFR.

RESULTS

During RST sessions, the BFR group demonstrated lower mean power output compared with non-BFR (-14.5%; g = 1.48; P = .001). Significant improvements (P < .05) in mean and peak power output during repeated-sprint ability (+4.1%; g = 0.42, and + 2.2%; g = 0.25, respectively) and anaerobic capacity (+4.8%; g = 0.47, and + 4.7%; g = 0.32, respectively) tests, leg lean mass (+2.0%; g = 0.16), and peak aerobic power (+3.3%; g = 0.25) were observed from pretesting to posttesting without any between-groups differences. No significant changes (P > .05) were observed for maximal isometric voluntary contraction and maximal aerobic capacity. Peak rate of force development decreased (P = .003) in both groups following RST (-14.6%; g = 0.65), without any between-groups differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated-sprint ability, anaerobic capacity, leg lean mass, and peak aerobic power improved following 3 weeks of RST; however, the addition of BFR did not further enhance adaptations. Interestingly, comparable improvements were achieved between groups despite lower external loads experienced during RST sessions with BFR.

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.

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.

Four Sessions of Repeated-Sprint Cycling Training With or Without Severe Hypoxia Do Not Modify Overground Running Sprint Force-Velocity Profile

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of cycling-based repeated-sprint training in hypoxia versus in normoxia on single overground running sprint performance and associated force-velocity (F-V) profile in world-class female rugby sevens players.

METHODS

Eighteen world-class female rugby sevens players were randomly assigned to repeated-sprint cycling training in normobaric hypoxia (n = 9) or normoxia (n = 9) groups. Training consisted of 4 sessions of repeated-sprint cycling training in normobaric hypoxia or in normoxia (4 × 5 × 5-s cycle sprints-25-s intersprint recovery performed in simulated altitude of ∼5000 m or in normoxia with 3-min interset rest in normoxia for both groups) in addition to rugby sevens training and strength and conditioning sessions within a 9-day intervention period before an international competition. Before and 1 day after the intervention, single 50-m overground running "all-out" sprint performance and associated F-V-related mechanical output were assessed.

RESULTS

No interaction (group × time; all P > .088), time effect (before vs 1 d after; all P > .296), or group effect (repeated-sprint cycling training in normobaric hypoxia vs in normoxia; all P > .325) was detected for 50-m overground running sprint performance and any derived F-V profiling variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Four sessions of repeated-sprint training either in hypoxia or in normoxia performed over 9 days had no influence on single 50-m overground running sprint performance and associated F-V profile. In world-class female rugby sevens players, the intervention (training camp before an international competition) might have been too short to induce measurable changes. It is also plausible that implementing a similar program in players with likely different F-V profile may result in negligible mechanical effect.

An Updated Panorama of Blood-Flow-Restriction Methods

BACKGROUND

Exercise with blood-flow restriction (BFR) is being increasingly used by practitioners working with athletic and clinical populations alike. Most early research combined BFR with low-load resistance training and consistently reported increased muscle size and strength without requiring the heavier loads that are traditionally used for unrestricted resistance training. However, this field has evolved with several different active and passive BFR methods emerging in recent research.

PURPOSE

This commentary aims to synthesize the evolving BFR methods for cohorts ranging from healthy athletes to clinical or load-compromised populations. In addition, real-world considerations for practitioners are highlighted, along with areas requiring further research.

CONCLUSIONS

The BFR literature now incorporates several active and passive methods, reflecting a growing implementation of BFR in sport and allied health fields. In addition to low-load resistance training, BFR is being combined with high-load resistance exercise, aerobic and anaerobic energy systems training of varying intensities, and sport-specific activities. BFR is also being applied passively in the absence of physical activity during periods of muscle disuse or rehabilitation or prior to exercise as a preconditioning or performance-enhancement technique. These various methods have been reported to improve muscular development; cardiorespiratory fitness; functional capacities; tendon, bone, and vascular adaptations; and physical and sport-specific performance and to reduce pain sensations. However, in emerging BFR fields, many unanswered questions remain to refine best practice.

Active recovery vs hot- or cold-water immersion for repeated sprint ability after a strenuous exercise training session in elite skaters

This study compared the acute effects of three recovery methods: active recovery (AR), hot- and cold-water immersion (HWI and CWI, respectively), used between two training sessions in elite athletes. Twelve national-team skaters (7 males, 5 females) completed three trials according to a randomized cross-over study. Fifteen minutes after an exhaustive ice-skating training session, participants underwent 20 min of HWI (41.1 ± 0.5°C), 15 min of CWI (12.1 ± 0.7°C) or 15 min of active recovery (AR). After 1 h 30 min of the first exercise, they performed a repeated-sprint cycling session. Average power output was slightly but significantly higher for AR (767 ± 179 W) and HWI (766 ± 170 W) compared to CWI (738 ± 156 W) (p = 0.026, d = 0.18). No statistical difference was observed between the conditions for both lactatemia and rating of perceived exertion. Furthermore, no significant effect of recovery was observed on the fatigue index calculated from the repeated sprint cycling exercises (p > 0.05). Finally, a positive correlation was found between the average muscle temperature measured during the recoveries and the maximal power output obtained during cycling exercises. In conclusion, the use of CWI in between high-intensity training sessions could slightly impair the performance outcomes compared to AR and HWI. However, studies with larger samples are needed to confirm these results, especially in less trained athletes.