Caffeine Abstinence in Habituated Users: Cardiovascular Responses to Exercise With Blood Flow Restriction.

CONTEXT: Blood flow restriction resistance exercise studies often require caffeine abstinence to avoid cardiovascular effects that could change the blood flow restriction stimulus. However, effects may be attenuated for habituated users. OBJECTIVE: To compare cardiovascular responses to blood flow restriction resistance exercise when habituated users consume or abstain from caffeine. DESIGN: Thirty participants completed a 3-visit within-subject study beginning with familiarization and caffeine intake questionnaire. METHODS: Visits 2 and 3 consisted of blood flow restriction resistance exercise (3 sets bicep curls to failure, 30% 1-repetition max, 40% arterial occlusion pressure [AOP]), following participants' normal caffeine consumption (CAFF) or abstaining (ABS). AOP, systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure, and heart rate were measured preexercise and postexercise. Prevalues and preexercise to postexercise change scores for SBP, DBP, AOP (all millimeters of mercury), heart rate (in beats per minute), and repetitions were compared between conditions. Results are represented as mean (SD). RESULTS: Preexercise AOP was similar for CAFF (137.8 [14.4]) and ABS (137.1 [14.9], BF10 = 0.2), although pre-SBP was higher for CAFF (115.4 [9.8]) than ABS (112.3 [9.4], BF10 = 1.9). Pre-DBP was similar between conditions. The exercise-induced change in AOP was greater for CAFF (18.4 [11.2]) than ABS (13.2 [14.9]), though evidence was anecdotal (BF10 = 0.7). Exercise-induced changes in SBP, DBP, and heart rate were similar between conditions (all BF10 ≤ 0.40). More repetitions were completed for CAFF (63 [26]) than ABS (57 [17], BF10 = 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that for habituated users, maintaining daily caffeine habits will not have substantial effects on common cardiovascular variables relevant to blood flow restriction.

Comparing the acute responses between a manual and automated blood flow restriction system.

The purpose of this study was to compare acute responses between manual and automated blood flow restriction (BFR) systems. Methods: A total of 33 individuals completed this study. On visit 1, arterial occlusion pressure (AOP, mm Hg), cardiovascular responses, and discomfort (RPE-D) were measured with each BFR system at rest. On visit 2, unilateral bicep curls were completed [30% one-repetition maximum; 50% AOP] with one system per arm. Muscle thickness (MT, cm) and maximal force (N) were assessed before (pre), immediately (post-0), 5 min (post-5), and 10 min (post-10) post-exercise. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE-E) and ratings of perceived discomfort (RPE-D) were assessed throughout the exercise. AOP and repetitions were compared with Bayesian paired t-tests. Other outcomes were compared with Bayesian RMANOVAs. BF10 represents the likelihood of the best model vs. the null. The results are presented as mean ± SD. Results: Supine cardiovascular responses and RPE-D were similar for manual and automated (all BF10 ≤ 0.2). Supine AOP for manual (157 ± 20) was higher than that of automated (142 ± 17; BF10 = 44496.0), but similar while standing (manual: 141 ± 17; automated: 141 ± 22; BF10 = 0.2). MT (time, BF10 = 6.047e + 40) increased from Pre (3.9 ± 0.7) to Post-0 (4.4 ± 0.8; BF10 = 2.969e + 28), with Post-0 higher than Post-5 (4.3 ± 0.8) and Post-10 (4.3 ± 0.8; both BF10 ≥ 275.2). Force (time, BF10 = 1.246e + 29) decreased from Pre (234.5 ± 79.2) to Post-0 (149.8 ± 52.3; BF10 = 2.720e + 22) and increased from Post-0 to Post-5 (193.3 ± 72.7; BF10 = 1.744e + 13), with Post-5 to Post-10 (194.0 ± 70.6; BF10 = 0.2) being similar. RPE-E increased over sets. RPE-D was lower for manual than automated. Repetitions per set were higher for manual (Set 1: 37 ± 18; Set 4: 9 ± 5) than automated (Set 1: 30 ± 7; Set 4: 7 ± 3; all BF10 ≥ 9.7). Conclusion: Under the same relative pressure, responses are mostly similar between BFR systems, although a manual system led to lower exercise discomfort and more repetitions.

Post-occlusive reactive hyperemia in habituated caffeine users: Effects of abstaining versus consuming typical doses.

BACKGROUND: Post-occlusive reactive hyperemia (PORH) typically requires caffeine abstinence. For habitual users, it is unknown if abstinence affects PORH. OBJECTIVE: Compare PORH after habitual users consume or abstain from caffeine. METHODS: On separate visits (within-subject), PORH was measured in 30 participants without abstinence from typical caffeine doses (CAFF) and with abstinence (ABS). Measurements included baseline and peak hyperemic velocity, tissue saturation index slopes during ischemia (Slope 1) and following cuff deflation (Slope 2), resting arterial occlusion pressure (AOP), heart rate (HR), systolic (SBP), and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure. All variables were compared using Bayesian paired t-tests. BF10 = likelihood of alternative vs null. Results are mean±SD. RESULTS: Comparing baseline velocity (cm/s) between CAFF (9.3±4.8) and ABS (7.5±4.9) yielded anecdotal evidence (BF10 = 1.0). Peak hyperemic velocity (cm/s) was similar (CAFF = 77.3±16.7; ABS = 77.6±19.0, BF10 = 0.20). For slopes (TSI% /s), CAFF Slope 1 = -0.11±0.04 and Slope 2 = 1.9±0.46 were similar (both BF10≤0.20) to ABS Slope 1 = -0.12±0.03 and Slope 2 = 1.8±0.42. SBP and DBP (mmHg) were both similar (CAFF SBP = 116.0±9.8, DBP = 69.6±5.8; ABS SBP = 115.5±10.7, DBP = 69.5±5.4; both BF10≤0.22). Comparing AOP (mmHg) (CAFF = 146.6±15.0; ABS = 143.0±16.4) yielded anecdotal evidence (BF10 = 0.46). HR (bpm) was similar (CAFF = 66.5±12.3; ABS = 66.9±13.0; BF10 = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: In habitual users, consuming or abstaining from typical caffeine doses does not appear to affect post-occlusive reactive hyperemia.

Associations Between Estimates of Arterial Stiffness and Cognitive Functioning in Adults With HIV.

BACKGROUND: Vascular aging, a precursor of arterial stiffness, is associated with neurocognitive impairment (NCI) and cardiovascular disease. Although HIV is associated with rapid vascular aging, it is unknown whether arterial stiffness mediates changes in cognitive function. We explored whether estimated markers of vascular aging were associated with NCI indices in HIV-positive individuals. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of an observational study. Neurocognitive functioning was assessed using a battery of 7 domains (verbal fluency, executive functioning, speed of information processing, attention/working memory, memory [learning and delayed recall], and motor skills). Vascular aging was assessed using estimated markers of arterial stiffness (ie, estimated pulse wave velocity, pulse pressure, and vascular overload index). A multivariable regression adjusted for demographics, cardiovascular disease risk factors, and HIV clinical variables was used to examine the association between vascular aging and NCI outcomes. RESULTS: Among 165 people with HIV, the mean age was 51.5 ± 6.9 years (62% men and 83% African American/Black or Other). In fully adjusted models, an increase in estimated pulse wave velocity and pulse pressure was associated with lower T scores in learning (-2.95 [-5.13, -0.77]) and working memory (-2.37 [-4.36, -0.37]), respectively. An increase in vascular overload index was associated with lower T scores in working memory (-2.33 [-4.37, -0.29]) and learning (-1.85 [-3.49, -0.21]). CONCLUSIONS: Estimated markers of arterial stiffness were weakly associated with neurocognitive functioning, suggesting that vascular aging may have a role in cognitive decline among people with HIV.

Skeletal Muscle Adaptations to High-Load Resistance Training With Pre-Exercise Blood Flow Restriction.

ABSTRACT: Hammert, WB, Moreno, EN, Martin, CC, Jessee, MB, and Buckner, SL. Skeletal muscle adaptations to high-load resistance training with pre-exercise blood flow restriction. J Strength Cond Res 37(12): 2381-2388, 2023-This study aimed to determine if blood flow restriction (BFR) could augment adaptations to a high-load training protocol that was inadequate for muscle growth. Forty nontrained individuals had each arm assigned to 1 of 3 elbow flexion protocols: (a) high-load resistance training [TRAD; 4 sets to muscular failure at 70% 1 repetition maximum (1RM)], (b) low repetition high-load resistance training with pre-exercise BFR (PreBFR; 4 sets of 3 repetitions at 70% 1RM + 3 min of pre-exercise BFR), and (c) low repetition high-load resistance training (LRTRAD); 4 sets of 3 repetitions at 70% 1RM). Muscle thickness (MT), 1RM strength, and local muscular endurance (LME) of the elbow flexors were measured before and after 8 weeks. An alpha level of 0.05 was used for all comparisons. For the 50% site, MT increased for TRAD (0.211 cm, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.143-0.280), PreBFR (0.105 cm, 95% CI: 0.034-0.175), and LRTRAD (0.073 cm, 95% CI: 0.000-0.146). The change for TRAD was greater than PreBFR and LRTRAD. For the 60% site, MT increased for TRAD (0.235 cm, 95% CI: 0.153-0.317), PreBFR (0.097 cm, 95% CI: 0.014-0.180), and LRTRAD (0.082 cm, 95% CI: 0.000-0.164). The change for TRAD was greater than PreBFR and LRTRAD. For the 70% site MT increased for TRAD (0.308 cm, 95% CI: 0.247-0.369), PreBFR (0.103 cm, 95% CI: 0.041-0.166), and LRTRAD (0.070 cm, 95% CI: 0.004-0.137). The change for TRAD was greater than PreBFR and LRTRAD. One repetition maximum and LME significantly increased for each condition, with no differences between conditions. Collapsed across conditions 1RM strength increased 2.094 kg (95% CI: 1.771-2.416) and LME increased 7.0 repetitions (95% CI: 5.7-8.3). In conclusion, the application of BFR to low-repetition, high-load training did not enhance the adaptative response.

Does muscle growth mediate changes in a nonspecific strength task?

The purpose of this study was to determine if muscle growth mediates increases in a strength task which was not directly trained. One hundred fifty-one participants were randomized into control, one-repetition maximum training (1RM-TRAIN), or traditional training (TRAD-TRAIN). Training groups performed isotonic elbow flexion 3x/week for 6 weeks. Anterior muscle thickness at 50%, 60% and 70% upper arm length, and maximal isokinetic torque at 60°/sec were assessed pre- and post-training. Change-score mediation models (adjusted for sex, pre-muscle thickness, and pre-strength) were constructed for each muscle thickness site. The effects of each training group were evaluated relative to the control. Data is presented as coefficient (95% CI). There were no significant relative direct effects on nonspecific strength for either training group outside of the 60% model (1.7 [0.13, 3.27] Nm). The relative effect of 1RM-TRAIN on muscle thickness was greater in 60% (0.09 [0.01, 0.17] cm) and 70% (0.09 [0.00, 0.17] cm) models; while TRAD-TRAIN was greater in all three: (50% = 0.24 [0.15, 0.32]; 60% = 0.24 [0.16, 0.33]; 70% = 0.22 [0.14, 0.31] cm). The effect of muscle thickness on nonspecific strength was only significant for the 60% (-3.06 [-5.7, -0.35] Nm) model. The relative indirect effect on nonspecific strength was not significant for the 1RM-TRAIN or TRAD-TRAIN. Similar to previous findings on specific strength, we did not find evidence for a mediating effect of muscle growth on training induced increases in nonspecific strength. The importance of muscle growth for changes in nonspecifically trained strength may need to be reconsidered.

Does performing resistance exercise to failure homogenize the training stimulus by accounting for differences in local muscular endurance?

The prescription of resistance exercise often involves administering a set number of repetitions to be completed at a given relative load. While this accounts for individual differences in strength, it neglects to account for differences in local muscle endurance and may result in varied responses across individuals. One way of potentially creating a more homogenous stimulus across individuals involves performing resistance exercise to volitional failure, but this has not been tested and was the purpose of the present study. Individuals completed 2 testing sessions to compare repetitions, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), muscle swelling and fatigue responses to arbitrary repetition (SET) vs. failure (FAIL) protocols using either 60% or 30% one-repetition maximum. Statistical analyses assessed differences in the variability between protocols. Forty-six individuals (25 females and 21 males) completed the study. There was more variability in the number of repetitions completed during FAIL when compared to SET protocols. Performing the 60% 1RM condition to failure appeared to reduce the variability in muscle swelling (average variance: 60%-SET = .034, 60%-FAIL = .023) and RPE (average variance: 60%-SET = 4.0, 60%-FAIL = 2.5), but did not alter the variability in muscle fatigue. No differences in variability were present between the SET-30% and FAIL-30% protocols for any of the dependent variables. Performing resistance exercise to failure may result in a more homogenous stimulus across individuals, particularly when using moderate to high exercise loads. The prescription of resistance exercise should account for individual differences in local muscle endurance to ensure a similarly effective stimulus across individuals.Highlights There is a large variance in the number of repetitions individuals can complete even when exercising with the same relative load.Ratings of perceived exertion and muscle swelling responses become more homogenous when exercising to volitional failure as compared to using performing a set number of repetitions, particularly when moderate to higher loads are used.The prescription of exercise should take into consideration the individual's local muscle endurance as opposed to choosing an arbitrary number of repetitions to be completed at a given relative load.

A narrative review of the effects of blood flow restriction on vascular structure and function.

Blood flow restriction is growing in popularity as a tool for increasing muscular size and strength. Currently, guidelines exist for using blood flow restriction alone and in combination with endurance and resistance exercise. However, only about 1.3% of practitioners familiar with blood flow restriction applications have utilized it for vascular changes, suggesting many of the guidelines are based on skeletal muscle outcomes. Thus, this narrative review is intended to explore the literature available in which blood flow restriction, or a similar application, assess the changes in vascular structure or function. Based on the literature, there is a knowledge gap in how applying blood flow restriction with relative pressures may alter the vasculature when applied alone, with endurance exercise, and with resistance exercise. In many instances, the application of blood flow restriction was not in accordance with the current guidelines, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions as to how the vascular system would be affected. Additionally, several studies report no change in vascular structure or function, but few studies look at variables for both outcomes. By examining outcomes for both structure and function, investigators would be able to generate recommendations for the use of blood flow restriction to improve vascular structure and/or function in the future.

A comparison of variability between absolute and relative blood flow restriction pressures.

INTRODUCTION: Recommendations are that blood flow restriction (BFR) be applied relative to arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) to provide a similar stimulus. PURPOSE: Compare variability of the change in blood flow, shear rate and discomfort between recommended relative pressures and an absolute pressure. METHODS: During one visit, brachial arterial blood flow was measured in 91 participants using pulse-wave Doppler ultrasonography. After 5-min seated rest, AOP was measured. Following another 5-min rest, blood flow and discomfort were assessed twice before cuff inflation as controls (C1 and C2), then again with a cuff inflated to each BFR pressure (all measures separated by 1-min). Change scores from C1 to all subsequent measures were calculated (i.e., C2-C1; 40% AOP-C1; 80% AOP-C1; 100 mmHg-C1). Variability of the changes were compared via pairwise modified Pitman-Morgan tests (α = 0.008). RESULTS: Variance (95% CI) of the change for blood flow (ml/min), shear rate (1/s), and discomfort (AU) had similar trends. C2-C1 differed from all conditions (all p < 0.001), 40% AOP-C1 differed from 80% AOP-C1 and 100 mmHg-C1 (all p < 0.001), which did not differ (both p ≥ 0.117). Blood flow: C2-C1 = 469.79 (357.90, 644.07), 40% AOP-C1 = 1263.18 (962.34, 1731.80), 80% AOP-C1 = 1752.90 (1335.42, 2403.18), 100 mmHg-C1 = 1603.18 (1221.36, 2197.92); shear rate: C2-C1 = 6248.24 (4760.10, 8566.15), 40% AOP-C1 = 14 625.30 (11 142.06, 20 050.95), 80% AOP-C1 = 22 064.02 (16 809.13, 30 249.27), 100 mmHg-C1 = 20 778.76 (15 829.98, 28 487.21); discomfort: C2-C1 = 0.07 (0.05, 0.08), 40% AOP-C1 = 2.03 (1.55, 2.78), 80% AOP-C1 = 4.26 (3.25, 5.84), 100 mmHg-C1 = 4.50 (3.43, 6.17). CONCLUSION: Contrary to previous suggestions, applying relative pressures does not necessarily guarantee a similar stimulus. It seems that higher pressures produce more variable changes even if the external pressure applied is made relative to each individual.

Unilateral, bilateral, and alternating muscle actions elicit similar muscular responses during low load blood flow restriction exercise.

PURPOSE: Compare acute muscular responses to unilateral, bilateral, and alternating blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise. METHODS: Maximal strength was tested on visit one. On visits 2-4, 2-10 days apart, 19 participants completed 4 sets of knee extensions (30% one-repetition maximum) with BFR (40% arterial occlusion pressure) to momentary failure (inability to lift load) using each muscle action (counterbalanced order). Ultrasound muscle thickness was measured at 60% and 70% of the anterior thigh before (Pre), immediately (Post-0), and 5 min (Post-5) after exercise. Surface electromyography and tissue deoxygenation were measured throughout. Results, presented as means, were analyzed with a three-way (sex by time by condition) Bayesian RMANOVA. RESULTS: There was a time by sex interaction (BFinclusion: 5.489) for left leg 60% muscle thickness (cm). However, changes from Pre to Post-0 (males: 0.39 vs females: 0.26; BF10: 0.839), Post-0 to Post-5 (males: - 0.05 vs females: - 0.06; BF10: 0.456), and Pre to Post-5 (males: 0.34 vs females: 0.20; BF10: 0.935) did not differ across sex. For electromyography (%MVC), there was a sex by condition interaction (BFinclusion: 550.472) with alternating having higher muscle excitation for females (16) than males (9; BF10: 5.097). Tissue deoxygenation (e.g. channel 1, µM) increased more for males (sets 1: 11.17; 2: 2.91; 3: 3.69; 4: 3.38) than females (sets 1: 4.49; 2: 0.24; 3: - 0.10; 4: - 0.06) from beginning to end of sets (all BFinclusion ≥ 4.295e + 7). For repetitions, there was an interaction (BFinclusion: 17.533), with alternating completing more than bilateral and unilateral for set one (100; 56; 50, respectively) and two (34; 16; 18, respectively). CONCLUSION: Alternating, bilateral, and unilateral BFR exercise elicit similar acute muscular responses.

A Retrospective Analysis to Determine Whether Training-Induced Changes in Muscle Thickness Mediate Changes in Muscle Strength.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of muscle thickness changes on changes in strength following 6 weeks of unaccustomed resistance training, via retrospective analysis. METHODS: 151 participants completed 6 weeks of no intervention (CONTROL), one-repetition maximum training (1RM-TRAIN), or traditional resistance training (TRAD-TRAIN). Groups were assigned by covariate adaptive randomization. 1RM-TRAIN and TRAD-TRAIN performed elbow flexion exercise on the dominant arm 3 times/week. One-repetition maximum strength and muscle thickness (B-mode ultrasound at 50, 60, and 70% of the anterior upper arm) were assessed pre- and post-training. Direct and indirect effects on strength via each training modality were quantified relative to CONTROL using indicator-coded, change-score mediation analyses for each muscle thickness site. Values are presented as regression coefficients (95% CI). RESULTS: The effect of 1RM-TRAIN on muscle thickness was greater than CONTROL for 60% [0.09 (0.01, 0.17) cm] and 70% [0.09 (0.01,0.18) cm] models. All muscle thickness changes for TRAD-TRAIN were greater than CONTROL: 50% [0.24 (0.16, 0.33) cm], 60% [0.25 (0.17, 0.33) cm], 70% [0.23 (0.14, 0.32) cm]. All direct effects on strength were greater for 1RM-TRAIN versus CONTROL: 50% [1.90 (1.21, 2.58) kg], 60% [1.89 (1.19, 2.58) kg], 70% [1.81 (1.12, 2.51) kg]; and TRAD-TRAIN versus CONTROL: 50% [2.04 (1.29, 2.80) kg], 60% [1.98 (1.22, 2.75) kg], 70% [1.79 (1.05, 2.53) kg]. Compared to CONTROL, there was no indication of an effect of 1RM-TRAIN on strength through muscle thickness (i.e., indirect effect) for 50% [- 0.03 (- 0.17, 0.10)], 60% [- 0.01 (- 0.17, 0.17)], or 70% [0.07 (- 0.09, 0.28)] sites, nor of TRAD-TRAIN for 50% [- 0.11 (- 0.48,0.29)], 60% [- 0.04 (- 0.42, 0.40)], and 70% sites [0.17 (- 0.23,0.58)]. CONCLUSION: Training-induced changes in muscle thickness do not appear to appreciably mediate training-induced changes in the strength of untrained individuals during the first 6 weeks of training.

The acute muscular response to passive movement and blood flow restriction.

PURPOSE: To compare the acute effects of passive movement combined with blood flow restriction (PM + BFR) to passive movement (PM) or blood flow restriction alone (BFR). METHODS: A total of 20 healthy participants completed: time control (TC), PM, BFR and PM + BFR (one per leg, over 2 days; randomized). For PM, a dynamometer moved the leg through 3 sets of 15 knee extensions/flexions (90° at 45°/second). For BFR, a cuff was inflated to 80% arterial occlusion pressure on the upper leg. Measurements consisted of anterior muscle thickness at 60% and 70% of the upper leg before and after (-0, -5 and -10 min) conditions, ratings of perceived effort and discomfort before conditions and after each set, and of the vastus lateralis during conditions. Data, presented as mean (SD), were compared using Bayesian RMANOVA, except for perceived effort and discomfort, which were compared using a Friedman's test (non-parametric). RESULTS: 60% (Δcm before-after-0: TC = 0.04 [0.09], PM = -0.01 [0.15], BFR = 0.00 [0.11], PM + BFR = 0.01 [0.22]) and 70% (Δcm before-after-0: TC = 0.01 [0.09], PM = -0.01 [0.15], BFR = 0.02 [0.11], PM + BFR = -0.03 [0.22]) muscle thickness did not change. Perceived effort was greater than TC following PM (p = .05) and PM + BFR (p = .001). Perceived discomfort was greater following BFR and PM + BFR compared to TC (all p ≤ .002) and PM (all p ≤ .010). Changes in deoxygenation (e.g. channel 1; ΔµM start set 1-end set 3: TC = 0.9 [1.2], PM = -1.2 [1.9], BFR = 10.3 [2.7], PM + BFR = 10.3 [3.0]) were generally greater with BFR and PM + BFR (BFinclusion  = 1.210e + 13). CONCLUSION: Acute muscular responses to PM + BFR are not augmented over the effect of BFR alone.

Acute cardiovascular response to unilateral, bilateral, and alternating resistance exercise with blood flow restriction.

AIM: Blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise is a common alternative to traditional high-load resistance exercise used to increase muscle size and strength. Some populations utilizing BFR at a low load may wish to limit their cardiovascular response to exercise. Different contraction patterns may attenuate the cardiovascular response, but this has not been compared using BFR. PURPOSE: To compare the cardiovascular response to unilateral (UNI), bilateral (BIL), and alternating (ALT) BFR exercise contraction patterns. METHODS: Twenty healthy participants performed four sets (30 s rest) of knee extensions to failure, using 30% one-repetition maximum, 40% arterial occlusion pressure, and each of the three contraction patterns (on different days, at the same time of day, separated by 2-10 days, randomized). Cardiovascular responses, presented as pre- to post-exercise mean changes (SD), were measured using pulse wave analysis and analyzed with Bayesian RMANOVA. RESULTS: ALT caused greater changes in: aortic systolic [ΔmmHg: ALT = 21(8); UNI = 13(11); BIL = 15(8); BF10 = 29.599], diastolic [ΔmmHg: ALT = 13(8); UNI = 7(11); BIL = 8(8); BF10 = 5.175], and mean arterial [ΔmmHg: ALT = 19(8); UNI = 11(11); BIL = 13(7); BF10 = 48.637] blood pressures. Aortic [ΔmmHg bpm: ALT = 4945(2340); UNI = 3294(1408); BIL = 3428 (1461); BF10 = 113.659] and brachial [ΔmmHg bpm: ALT = 6134(2761); UNI = 4300(1709); BIL = 4487(1701); BF10 = 31.845] rate pressure products, as well as heart rate [Δbpm: ALT = 26(14); UNI = 19(8); BIL = 19(11); BF10 = 5.829] were greatest with ALT. Augmentation index [Δ%: UNI = -6(13); BIL = - 7(11); ALT = - 5(16); BF10 = 0.155] and wave reflection magnitude [Δ%: UNI = - 5(9); BIL = - 4(7); ALT = - 4(7); BF10 = 0.150] were not different. CONCLUSION: Those at risk of a cardiovascular event may choose unilateral or bilateral BFR exercise over alternating until further work determines the degree to which it can be tolerated.

Limb Occlusion Pressure: A Method to Assess Changes in Systolic Blood Pressure.

Although often used as a surrogate, comparisons between traditional blood pressure measurements and limb occlusion assessed via hand-held Doppler have yet to be completed. Using limb occlusion pressure as a method of assessing systolic pressure is of interest to those studying the acute effects of blood flow restriction, where the removal of the cuff may alter the physiological response. PURPOSE: We sought to determine how changes in limb occlusion pressure track with changes in traditional assessments of blood pressure. BASIC PROCEDURES: Limb occlusion pressure measured by hand-held Doppler and blood pressure measured by an automatic blood pressure cuff were assessed at rest and following isometric knee extension (post and 5 minutes post). MAIN FINDINGS: Each individual had a similar dispersion from the mean value for both the limb occlusion pressure measurement and traditional systolic blood pressure measurement [BF10: 0.33; median (95% credible interval): 0.02 (-6.0, 5.9) %]. In response to lower body isometric exercise, blood pressure changed across time. The difference between measurements was small at immediately post and 5 minutes post. The Bayes factors were in the direction of the null but did not exceed the threshold needed to accept the null hypothesis. However, at 5 minutes post, the differences were within the range of practical equivalence (within ± 4.6%). PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that changes in limb occlusion pressure measured by hand-held Doppler track similarly to traditional measurements of brachial systolic blood pressure following isometric knee extension exercise.

Assessing differential responders and mean changes in muscle size, strength, and the crossover effect to 2 distinct resistance training protocols.

The objective of this study was to determine differences in 2 distinct resistance training protocols and if true variability can be detected after accounting for random error. Individuals (n = 151) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: (i) a traditional exercise group performing 4 sets to failure; (ii) a group performing a 1-repetition maximum (1RM) test; and (iii) a time-matched nonexercise control group. Both exercise groups performed 18 sessions of elbow flexion exercise over 6 weeks. While both training groups increased 1RM strength similarly (∼2.4 kg), true variability was only present in the traditional exercise group (true variability = 1.80 kg). Only the 1RM group increased untrained arm 1RM strength (1.5 kg), while only the traditional group increased ultrasound measured muscle thickness (∼0.23 cm). Despite these mean increases, no true variability was present for untrained arm strength or muscle hypertrophy in either training group. In conclusion, these findings demonstrate the importance of taking into consideration the magnitude of random error when classifying differential responders, as many studies may be classifying high and low responders as those who have the greatest amount of random error present. Additionally, our mean results demonstrate that strength is largely driven by task specificity, and the crossover effect of strength may be load dependent. Novelty Many studies examining differential responders to exercise do not account for random error. True variability was present in 1RM strength gains, but the variability in muscle hypertrophy and isokinetic strength changes could not be distinguished from random error. The crossover effect of strength may differ based on the protocol employed.

Validity of the Handheld Doppler to Determine Lower-Limb Blood Flow Restriction Pressure for Exercise Protocols.

Laurentino, GC, Loenneke, JP, Mouser, JG, Buckner, SL, Counts, BR, Dankel, SJ, Jessee, MB, Mattocks, KT, Iared, W, Tavares, LD, Teixeira, EL, and Tricoli, V. Validity of the handheld Doppler to determine lower-limb blood flow restriction pressure for exercise protocols. J Strength Cond Res 34(9): 2693-2696, 2020-Handheld (HH) Doppler is frequently used for determining the arterial occlusion pressure during blood flow restriction exercises; however, it is unknown whether the blood flow is occluded when the auscultatory signal is no longer present. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity between the HH Doppler and the Doppler ultrasound (US) measurements for determining the arterial occlusion pressure in healthy men. Thirty-five participants underwent 2 arterial occlusion pressure measurements. In the first measure, a pressure cuff (17.5 cm wide) was placed at the most proximal region of the thigh and the pulse of posterior tibial artery was detected using an HH Doppler probe. The cuff was inflated until the auscultatory pulse was no longer detected. After 10 minutes of rest, the procedure was repeated with the Doppler US probe placed on the superficial femoral artery. The cuff was inflated up to the point at which the femoral arterial blood flow was interrupted. The point at which the auscultatory pulse and blood flow were no longer detected was deemed the arterial occlusion pressure. There were no significant differences in arterial occlusion pressure level between the HH Doppler and the Doppler US (133 [±18] vs. 135 [±17] mm Hg, p = 0.168). There was a significant correlation (r = 0.938, p = 0.168), reasonable agreement, and a total error of the estimate of 6.0 mm Hg between measurements. Arterial occlusion pressure level determined by the HH Doppler and the Doppler US was similar, providing evidence that the HH Doppler is a valid and practical method.

The Impact of Ultrasound Probe Tilt on Muscle Thickness and Echo-Intensity: A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: To determine the influence of ultrasound probe tilt on reliability and overall changes in muscle thickness and echo-intensity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six individuals had a total of 15 images taken on both the biceps brachii and tibialis anterior muscles. These images were taken in 2° increments with the probe tilted either upward (U) or downward (D) from perpendicular (0°) to the muscle (U6°, U4°, U2°, 0°, D2°, D4°, and D6°). All images were then saved, stored, and analyzed using Image-J software for echo-intensity and muscle thickness measures. Mean values (2-3 measurements within each probe angle) were compared across each probe angle, and reliability was assessed as if the first measure was taken perpendicular to the muscle, but the second measure was taken with the probe tilted to a different angle (to assume unintentional adjustments in reliability from probe tilt). RESULTS: Tilting the probe as little as 2° produced a significant 4.7%, and 10.5% decrease in echo-intensity of the tibialis anterior and biceps brachii muscles, respectively, while changes in muscle thickness were negligible (<1%) at all probe angles. The reliability for muscle thickness was greater than that of echo-intensity when the probe was held perpendicular at both measurements (∼1% vs 3%), and the impact that probe tilt had on reliability was exacerbated for echo-intensity measurements (max coefficient of variation: 24.5%) compared to muscle thickness (max coefficient of variation: 1.5%). CONCLUSION: While muscle thickness is less sensitive to ultrasound probe tilt, caution should be taken to ensure minimal probe tilt is present when taking echo-intensity measurements as this will alter mean values and reduce reliability. Echo-intensity values should be interpreted cautiously, particularly when comparing values across technicians/studies where greater alterations in probe tilt is likely.

The Basics of Training for Muscle Size and Strength: A Brief Review on the Theory.

The periodization of resistance exercise is often touted as the most effective strategy for optimizing muscle size and strength adaptations. This narrative persists despite a lack of experimental evidence to demonstrate its superiority. In addition, the general adaptation syndrome, which provides the theoretical framework underlying periodization, does not appear to provide a strong physiological rationale that periodization is necessary. Hans Selye conducted a series of rodent studies which used toxic stressors to facilitate the development of the general adaptation syndrome. To our knowledge, normal exercise in humans has never been shown to produce a general adaptation syndrome. We question whether there is any physiological rationale that a periodized training approach would facilitate greater adaptations compared with nonperiodized approaches employing progressive overload. The purpose of this article is to briefly review currently debated topics within strength and conditioning and provide some practical insight regarding the implications these reevaluations of the literature may have for resistance exercise and periodization. In addition, we provide some suggestions for the continued advancement within the field of strength and conditioning.