Effect of different recovery modes during resistance training with blood flow restriction on hormonal levels and performance in young men: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) results in hypertrophy, and its magnitude depends on various training variables. This study aimed to compare the long-term effect of passive recovery (PR) and active recovery (AR) during low-intensity resistance training with BFR on hormonal levels and performance in young men.

METHODS

In the randomized clinical trial, 20 men were randomly divided into PR and AR groups during resistance training with BFR. The intervention consisted of six upper and lower body movements with 30% of one maximum repetition (1RM), three sessions per week for six weeks. Both groups wore pneumatic cuffs on the proximal part of thighs and arms. The cuff pressure was 60% of the calculated arterial blood occlusion and increased 10% every two weeks. The AR group performed seven repetitions in 30 s break between sets by one second for concentric and eccentric phases and two seconds rest, and the other group had passive rest. The blood samples and a series of performance tests were gathered before and after the intervention. A repeated measure ANOVA was used to analyze data.

RESULTS

AR and PR interventions significantly improved the C-reactive protein (CRP) (- 38% vs. - 40%), Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (- 11% vs. - 3%), Sargent jump (9% vs. 10%), peak power (20% vs.18%), and average power (14% vs. 14%), upper 1RM (8% vs. 8%) and no significant differences were observed between groups. The AR intervention significantly increased growth hormone (GH) (423% vs. 151%, p = 0.03), lower body 1RM (18% vs. 11%) and muscle endurance (34% vs. 22% for the upper body, p = 0.02 and 32% vs. 24% for the lower body, p = 0.04) than the PR group. The PR intervention further increased the minimum power than the AR group (19% vs. 10%). There were no significant changes in testosterone (p = 0.79) and cortisol (p = 0.34) following interventions.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicated that by increasing muscle activation and higher metabolic load, AR during resistance training with BFR might cause more remarkable improvements in serum GH, muscle strength, and endurance. Thus, to gain further benefits, AR during training with BFR is recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

IRCT20191207045644N1. Registration date: 14/03/2020. URL: https://www.irct.ir/search/result?query=IRCT20191207045644N1.

Effect of Interset Strategies on Acute Resistance Training Performance and Physiological Responses: A Systematic Review

Latella, C, Grgic, J, and Van der Westhuizen, D. Effect of interset strategies on acute resistance training performance and physiological responses: a systematic review. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2019-The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence surrounding the implementation of interset strategies to optimize acute resistance training performance. Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus electronic databases were conducted. Studies that met the following criteria were included: (a) compared an interset strategy with a traditional passive rest interval in resistance training, (b) the assessed outcomes included performance or physiological responses, (c) resistance training was performed in a traditional dynamic fashion, (d) the study had an acute design, and (e) was published in English and in a peer-reviewed journal. A total of 26 studies were included in the review. When a given interset strategy was used, several studies reported improvements in the number of performed repetitions (i.e., greater total volume load), attenuation of the loss in velocity and power, reduced lactate levels, and in some cases, a decrease in perceived exertion. Dynamic agonist/static antagonist stretching, cooling, aerobic exercise, vibration, and individualized heart rate-based intervals seem to be the most effective strategies. However, the heterogeneity between study designs and methodologies suggests that careful consideration should be given to the type and specific application of the interset method being used. Given the acute nature of studies, extrapolation to any long-term benefits of using a given interset strategy remains limited. Collectively, coaches and sports scientists may consider using the most effective strategies based on practicality and equipment availability to optimize performance during the resistance training component of strength and conditioning programs.

Influence of inter-set stretching on strength, flexibility and hormonal adaptations

Adequate levels of strength and flexibility are important for the promotion and maintenance of health and functional autonomy as well as safe and effective sports participation. The aim of the present study was to analyze the effects of 8 weeks of strength training with or without inter-set static stretching on strength, flexibility and hormonal adaptations of trained men. Sixteen trained men were randomly divided into 2 groups: the static stretching group (SSG) and passive interval group (PIG). All participants performed 24 training sessions 3 times a week. The test and retest of 8RM, strength, flexibility, cortisol and growth hormone concentration in pre and post test conditions were also evaluated. To compare the differences between and within groups in pre- and post-training tests, ANOVA with repeated measures was performed (SSG_pre x SSG_post; PIG_pre x PIG_post; SSG_post x PIG_post). An alpha level of p<0.05 was considered statistically significant for all comparisons. Both groups showed significant increases in strength (SSG_pre vs. SSG_post; PIG_pre vs. PIG_post) in the same exercises for leg extension (LE) and Low Row (LR). Specifically, in the SSG group, the parameters for LE were (p = 0.0015 and ES = 2.28 - Large), and the parameters for LR were (p = 0.002 and ES = 1.95 - Large). Moreover, in the PIG group, the parameters for LE were (p = 0.009 and ES = 1.95 - Large), and the parameters for LR were (p = 0.0001 and ES = 2.88 - Large). No differences were found between the groups (SSG_post vs. PIG_post). Both groups showed significant increases in flexibility but in different joints (SSG_pre vs. SSG_post; PIG_pre vs. PIG_post). In the SSG group, only three joints showed significant increases in flexibility: shoulder extension (p = 0.004 and ES = 1.76 - Large), torso flexion (p = 0.002 and ES = 2.36 - Large), and hip flexion (p = 0.001 and ES = 1.79 -Large). In the PIG group, only three joints showed increases in flexibility: horizontal shoulder abduction (p = 0.003 and ES = 2.07 - Large), hip flexion (p = 0.001 and ES = 2.39 – Large), and hip extension (p = 0.02 and ES = 1.79 - Large). In-between group analyses (SSG_post x PIG_post) revealed differences in two joints: shoulder extension (p = 0.001) and horizontal shoulder abduction (p = 0.001). Hormonal profiles showed no significant differences in cortisol secretion or growth hormone concentration. In conclusion, both studied strength protocols (with and without inter-set static stretching) resulted in flexibility and strength gains without an effect on the anabolic and catabolic hormonal profile.