Investigating the autoregulation of applied blood flow restriction training pressures in healthy, physically active adults: an intervention study evaluating acute training responses and safety

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Objective

To examine the effects of autoregulated (AUTO) and non-autoregulated (NAUTO) blood flow restriction (BFR) application on adverse effects, performance, cardiovascular and perceptual responses during resistance exercise.

Methods

Fifty-six healthy participants underwent AUTO and NAUTO BFR resistance exercise in a randomised crossover design using a training session with fixed amount of repetitions and a training session until volitional failure. Cardiovascular parameters, rate of perceived effort (RPE), rate of perceived discomfort (RPD) and number of repetitions were investigated after training, while the presence of delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) was verified 24 hours post-session. Adverse events during or following training were also monitored.

Results

AUTO outperformed NAUTO in the failure protocol (p<0.001), while AUTO scored significantly lower for DOMS 24 hours after exercise (p<0.001). Perceptions of effort and discomfort were significantly higher in NAUTO compared with AUTO in both fixed (RPE: p=0.014, RPD: p<0.001) and failure protocol (RPE: p=0.028, RPD: p<0.001). Sixteen adverse events (7.14%) were recorded, with a sevenfold incidence in the fixed protocol for NAUTO compared with AUTO (NAUTO: n=7 vs AUTO: n=1) and five (NAUTO) vs three (AUTO) adverse events in the failure protocol. No significant differences in cardiovascular parameters were found comparing both pressure applications.

Conclusion

Autoregulation appears to enhance safety and performance in both fixed and failure BFR-training protocols. AUTO BFR training did not seem to affect cardiovascular stress differently, but was associated with lower DOMS, perceived effort and discomfort compared with NAUTO.

Trial registration number

NCT04996680.

Related collections

Most cited references 41

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Blood Flow Restriction Exercise Position Stand: Considerations of Methodology, Application, and Safety

Stephen Patterson, Luke Hughes, Stuart Warmington … (2019)

The current manuscript sets out a position stand for blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise, focusing on the methodology, application and safety of this mode of training. With the emergence of this technique and the wide variety of applications within the literature, the aim of this position stand is to set out a current research informed guide to BFR training to practitioners. This covers the use of BFR to enhance muscular strength and hypertrophy via training with resistance and aerobic exercise and preventing muscle atrophy using the technique passively. The authorship team for this article was selected from the researchers focused in BFR training research with expertise in exercise science, strength and conditioning and sports medicine.

0 comments Cited 156 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Magnitude of Muscle Strength and Mass Adaptations Between High-Load Resistance Training Versus Low-Load Resistance Training Associated with Blood-Flow Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Manoel E Lixandrão, Carlos Ugrinowitsch, Ricardo Paes de Barros Berton … (2018)

0 comments Cited 144 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A review on the mechanisms of blood-flow restriction resistance training-induced muscle hypertrophy.

Syed Hussain, Stephen John Pearson (2015)

It has traditionally been believed that resistance training can only induce muscle growth when the exercise intensity is greater than 65% of the 1-repetition maximum (RM). However, more recently, the use of low-intensity resistance exercise with blood-flow restriction (BFR) has challenged this theory and consistently shown that hypertrophic adaptations can be induced with much lower exercise intensities (<50% 1-RM). Despite the potent hypertrophic effects of BFR resistance training being demonstrated by numerous studies, the underlying mechanisms responsible for such effects are not well defined. Metabolic stress has been suggested to be a primary factor responsible, and this is theorised to activate numerous other mechanisms, all of which are thought to induce muscle growth via autocrine and/or paracrine actions. However, it is noteworthy that some of these mechanisms do not appear to be mediated to any great extent by metabolic stress but rather by mechanical tension (another primary factor of muscle hypertrophy). Given that the level of mechanical tension is typically low with BFR resistance exercise (<50% 1-RM), one may question the magnitude of involvement of these mechanisms aligned to the adaptations reported with BFR resistance training. However, despite the low level of mechanical tension, it is plausible that the effects induced by the primary factors (mechanical tension and metabolic stress) are, in fact, additive, which ultimately contributes to the adaptations seen with BFR resistance training. Exercise-induced mechanical tension and metabolic stress are theorised to signal a number of mechanisms for the induction of muscle growth, including increased fast-twitch fibre recruitment, mechanotransduction, muscle damage, systemic and localised hormone production, cell swelling, and the production of reactive oxygen species and its variants, including nitric oxide and heat shock proteins. However, the relative extent to which these specific mechanisms are induced by the primary factors with BFR resistance exercise, as well as their magnitude of involvement in BFR resistance training-induced muscle hypertrophy, requires further exploration.