The Effect of Blood Flow Restriction Exercise on Angiogenesis-Related Factors in Skeletal Muscle Among Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Daily blood flow restriction does not preserve muscle mass and strength during 2 weeks of bed rest

We measured the impact of blood flow restriction on muscle protein synthesis rates, muscle mass and strength during 2 weeks of strict bed rest. Twelve healthy, male adults (age: 24 ± 3 years, body mass index: 23.7 ± 3.1 kg/m2 ) were subjected to 14 days of strict bed rest with unilateral blood flow restriction performed three times daily in three 5 min cycles (200 mmHg). Participants consumed deuterium oxide and we collected blood and saliva samples throughout 2 weeks of bed rest. Before and immediately after bed rest, lean body mass (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan) and thigh muscle volume (magnetic resonance imaging scan) were assessed in both the blood flow restricted (BFR) and control (CON) leg. Muscle biopsies were collected and unilateral muscle strength (one-repetition maximum; 1RM) was assessed for both legs before and after the bed rest period. Bed rest resulted in 1.8 ± 1.0 kg lean body mass loss (P < 0.001). Thigh muscle volume declined from 7.1 ± 1.1 to 6.7 ± 1.0 L in CON and from 7.0 ± 1.1 to 6.7 ± 1.0 L in BFR (P < 0.001), with no differences between treatments (P = 0.497). In addition, 1RM leg extension strength decreased from 60.2 ± 10.6 to 54.8 ± 10.9 kg in CON and from 59.2 ± 12.1 to 52.9 ± 12.0 kg in BFR (P = 0.014), with no differences between treatments (P = 0.594). Muscle protein synthesis rates during bed rest did not differ between the BFR and CON leg (1.11 ± 0.12 vs. 1.08 ± 0.13%/day, respectively; P = 0.302). Two weeks of bed rest substantially reduces skeletal muscle mass and strength. Blood flow restriction during bed rest does not modulate daily muscle protein synthesis rates and does not preserve muscle mass or strength. KEY POINTS: Bed rest, often necessary for recovery from illness or injury, leads to the loss of muscle mass and strength. It has been postulated that blood flow restriction may attenuate the loss of muscle mass and strength during bed rest. We investigated the effect of blood flow restriction on muscle protein synthesis rates, muscle mass and strength during 2 weeks of strict bed rest. Blood flow restriction applied during bed rest does not modulate daily muscle protein synthesis rates and does not preserve muscle mass or strength. Blood flow restriction is not effective in preventing muscle atrophy during a prolonged period of bed rest.

Idiosyncratic bone responses to blood flow restriction exercise: new insights and future directions

Applying blood flow restriction (BFR) during low-load exercise induces beneficial adaptations of the myotendinous and neuromuscular systems. Despite the low mechanical tension, BFR exercise facilitates a localized hypoxic environment and increase in metabolic stress, widely regarded as the primary stimulus for tissue adaptations. First evidence indicates that low-load BFR exercise is effective in promoting an osteogenic response in bone, although this has previously been postulated to adapt primarily during high-impact weight-bearing exercise. Besides studies investigating the acute response of bone biomarkers following BFR exercise, first long-term trials demonstrate beneficial adaptations in bone in both healthy and clinical populations. Despite the increasing number of studies, the physiological mechanisms are largely unknown. Moreover, heterogeneity in methodological approaches such as biomarkers of bone metabolism measured, participant and study characteristics, and time course of measurement renders it difficult to formulate accurate conclusions. Furthermore, incongruity in the methods of BFR application (e.g., cuff pressure) limits the comparability of datasets and thus hinders generalizability of study findings. Appropriate use of biomarkers, effective BFR application, and befitting study design have the potential to progress knowledge on the acute and chronic response of bone to BFR exercise and contribute toward the development of a novel strategy to protect or enhance bone health. Therefore, the purpose of the present synthesis review is to 1) evaluate current mechanistic evidence; 2) discuss and offer explanations for similar and contrasting data findings; and 3) create a methodological framework for future mechanistic and applied research.

The effects of lower limb ischaemic preconditioning: a systematic review

Ischaemic preconditioning (IPC) involves the use of repeated occlusions and reperfusions of the peripheral muscle blood supply at a limb. This systematic literature review examines the typical responses in response to the method of application during an IPC applied at the lower limb. This review focuses on the physiological responses for VO2max, haemoglobin, metabolic and genetic responses to various IPC interventions. The literature search was performed using four databases and assessed using the PRISMA search strategy and COSMIN to assess the quality of the articles. Seventeen articles were included in the review, with a total of 237 participants. While there is variation in the method of application, the average occlusion pressure was 222 ± 34 mmHg, ranging from 170 to 300 mmHg typically for 3 or 4 occlusion cycles. The distribution of this pressure is influenced by cuff width, although 8 studies failed to report cuff width. The majority of studies applies IPC at the proximal thigh with 16/17 studies applying an occlusion below this location. The results highlighted the disparities and conflicting findings in response to various IPC methods. While there is some agreement in certain aspects of the IPC manoeuvre such as the location of the occlusion during lower limb IPC, there is a lack of consensus in the optimal protocol to elicit the desired responses. This offers the opportunity for future research to refine the protocols, associated responses, and mechanisms responsible for these changes during the application of IPC.

The effect of blood flow restriction exercise on N-lactoylphenylalanine and appetite regulation in obese adults: a cross-design study

Background

N-lactoylphenylalanine (Lac-Phe) is a new form of "exerkines" closely related to lactate (La), which may be able to inhibit appetite. Blood flow restriction (BFR) can lead to local tissue hypoxia and increase lactate accumulation. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of combining Moderate-intensity Continuous Exercise (MICE) with BFR on Lac-Phe and appetite regulation in obese adults.

Methods

This study employed the cross-design study and recruited 14 obese adults aged 18-24 years. The participants were randomly divided into three groups and performed several tests with specific experimental conditions: (1) M group (MICE without BFR, 60%VO2max, 200 kJ); (2) B group (MICE with BFR, 60%VO2max, 200 kJ); and (3) C group (control session without exercise). Participants were given a standardized meal 60 min before exercise and a ad libitum 60 min after exercise. In addition, blood and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were collected before, immediately after, and 1 hour after performing the exercise.

Results

No significant difference in each index was detected before exercise. After exercise, the primary differential metabolites detected in the M and B groups were xanthine, La, succinate, Lac-Phe, citrate, urocanic acid, and myristic acid. Apart from that, the major enrichment pathways include the citrate cycle, alanine, aspartate, and glutamate metabolism. The enhanced Lac-Phe and La level in the B group was higher than M and C groups. Hunger of the B group immediately after exercise substantially differed from M group. The total ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide-1 and hunger in the B group 1 hour after exercise differed substantially from M group. The results of calorie intake showed no significant difference among the indexes in each group.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this cross-design study demonstrated that the combined MICE and BFR exercise reduced the appetite of obese adults by promoting the secretion of Lac-Phe and ghrelin. However, the exercise did not considerably affect the subsequent ad libitum intake.

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.

Hormonal, immune, and oxidative stress responses to blood flow-restricted exercise

INTRODUCTION

Heavy-load free-flow resistance exercise (HL-FFRE) is a widely used training modality. Recently, low-load blood-flow restricted resistance exercise (LL-BFRRE) has gained attention in both athletic and clinical settings as an alternative when conventional HL-FFRE is contraindicated or not tolerated. LL-BFRRE has been shown to result in physiological adaptations in muscle and connective tissue that are comparable to those induced by HL-FFRE. The underlying mechanisms remain unclear; however, evidence suggests that LL-BFRRE involves elevated metabolic stress compared to conventional free-flow resistance exercise (FFRE).

AIM

The aim was to evaluate the initial (<10 min post-exercise), intermediate (10-20 min), and late (>30 min) hormonal, immune, and oxidative stress responses observed following acute sessions of LL-BFRRE compared to FFRE in healthy adults.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of randomized and non-randomized studies was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB2, ROBINS-1) and TESTEX were used to evaluate risk of bias and study quality. Data extractions were based on mean change within groups.

RESULTS

A total of 12525 hits were identified, of which 29 articles were included. LL-BFRRE demonstrated greater acute increases in growth hormone responses when compared to overall FFRE at intermediate (SMD 2.04; 95% CI 0.87, 3.22) and late (SMD 2.64; 95% CI 1.13, 4.16) post-exercise phases. LL-BFRRE also demonstrated greater increase in testosterone responses compared to late LL-FFRE.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that LL-BFRRE can induce increased or similar hormone and immune responses compared to LL-FFRE and HL-FFRE along with attenuated oxidative stress responses compared to HL-FFRE.

Blood flow restriction as a potential therapy to restore physical function following COVID-19 infection

Accumulating evidence indicates that some COVID-19 survivors display reduced muscle mass, muscle strength, and aerobic capacity, which contribute to impairments in physical function that can persist for months after the acute phase of illness. Accordingly, strategies to restore muscle mass, muscle strength, and aerobic capacity following infection are critical to mitigate the long-term consequences of COVID-19. Blood flow restriction (BFR), which involves the application of mechanical compression to the limbs, presents a promising therapy that could be utilized throughout different phases of COVID-19 illness. Specifically, we hypothesize that: 1) use of passive BFR modalities can mitigate losses of muscle mass and muscle strength that occur during acute infection and 2) exercise with BFR can serve as an effective alternative to high-intensity exercise without BFR for regaining muscle mass, muscle strength, and aerobic capacity during convalescence. The various applications of BFR may also serve as a targeted therapy to address the underlying pathophysiology of COVID-19 and provide benefits to the musculoskeletal system as well as other organ systems affected by the disease. Consequently, we present a theoretical framework with which BFR could be implemented throughout the progression from acute illness to outpatient rehabilitation with the goal of improving short- and long-term outcomes in COVID-19 survivors. We envision that this paper will encourage discussion and consideration among researchers and clinicians of the potential therapeutic benefits of BFR to treat not only COVID-19 but similar pathologies and cases of acute critical illness.

Effects of Resistance Exercise on Neuroprotective Factors in Middle and Late Life: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Neuroprotective factors are involved in brain functioning. Although physical exercise has been shown to have a positive influence on these factors, the effect of resistance exercise on them is not well known. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to 1) estimate the efficacy of resistance exercise on major neuroprotective factors, such as insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), in middle and late life and 2) determine whether the effect is dose dependent. A systematic search was conducted in CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Scopus, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science up to November 2022. Random effects models were used to estimate standardized mean differences (SMDs) and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the effect of resistance exercise on peripheral IGF-1, BDNF or VEGF levels in older adults. Thirty randomized clinical trials with 1247 subjects (53.25% women, 45-92 years) were included in the systematic review, and 27 were selected for the meta-analysis. A significant effect of resistance exercise on IGF-1 levels was observed (SMD: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.69), being more effective when performing 3 sessions/week (SMD: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.31, 0.79) but not on BDNF (SMD: 0.33; 95% CI: -0.29, 0.94). The effect on VEGF could not be determined due to the scarcity of studies. Our data support the resistance training recommendation in middle and late life, at a frequency of at least 3 sessions/week, to mitigate the neurological and cognitive consequences associated with aging, mainly through IGF-1.

Beneficial Role of Blood Flow Restriction Exercise in Heart Disease and Heart Failure Using the Muscle Hypothesis of Chronic Heart Failure and a Growing Literature

Background: Blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE) has become a common method to increase skeletal muscle strength and hypertrophy for individuals with a variety of conditions. A substantial literature of BFRE in older adults exists in which significant gains in strength and functional performance have been observed without report of adverse events. Research examining the effects of BFRE in heart disease (HD) and heart failure (HF) appears to be increasing for which reason the Muscle Hypothesis of Chronic Heart Failure (MHCHF) will be used to fully elucidate the effects BFRE may have in patients with HD and HF highlighted in the MHCHF.

Methods: A comprehensive literature review was performed in PubMed and the Cochrane library through February 2022. Inclusion criteria were: 1) the study was original research conducted in human subjects older than 18 years of age and diagnosed with either HD or HF, 2) study participants performed BFRE, and 3) post-intervention outcome measures of cardiovascular function, physical performance, skeletal muscle function and structure, and/or systemic biomarkers were provided. Exclusion criteria included review articles and articles on viewpoints and opinions of BFRE, book chapters, theses, dissertations, and case study articles.

Results: Seven BFRE studies in HD and two BFRE studies in HF were found of which four of the HD and the two HF studies examined a variety of measures reflected within the MHCHF over a period of 8–24 weeks. No adverse events were reported in any of the studies and significant improvements in skeletal muscle strength, endurance, and work as well as cardiorespiratory performance, mitochondrial function, exercise tolerance, functional performance, immune humoral function, and possibly cardiac performance were observed in one or more of the reviewed studies.

Conclusion: In view of the above systematic review, BFRE has been performed safely with no report of adverse event in patients with a variety of different types of HD and in patients with HF. The components of the MHCHF that can be potentially improved with BFRE include left ventricular dysfunction, inflammatory markers, inactivity, a catabolic state, skeletal and possibly respiratory muscle myopathy, dyspnea and fatigue, ANS activity, and peripheral blood flow. Furthermore, investigation of feasibility, acceptability, adherence, adverse effects, and symptoms during and after BFRE is needed since very few studies have examined these important issues comprehensively in patients with HD and HF.