Continuous blood flow restriction during repeated-sprint exercise increases peripheral but not systemic physiological and perceptual demands.

This study examined the impact of continuous blood flow restriction (BFR) during repeated-sprint exercise (RSE) on acute performance, peripheral, systemic physiological, and perceptual responses. In a randomized crossover design, 26 adult male semi-professional and amateur team-sport players completed two RSE sessions (3 sets of 5 × 5-s sprints with 25 s of passive recovery and 3 min of rest) with continuous BFR (45% arterial occlusion; excluding during between-set rest periods) or without (non-BFR). Mean and peak power output were significantly lower (p < 0.001) during BFR compared to non-BFR (dz = 0.85 and 0.77, respectively). Minimum tissue saturation index during the sprints and rest periods was significantly reduced (p < 0.001) for BFR (dz = 1.26 and 1.21, respectively). Electromyography root mean square was significantly decreased (p < 0.01) for biceps femoris and lateral gastrocnemius muscles during BFR (dz = 0.35 and 0.79, respectively), but remained unchanged for the vastus lateralis muscle in both conditions. Oxygen consumption and minute ventilation were significantly reduced (both p < 0.01) for BFR (dz = 1.46 and 0.43, respectively). Perceived limb discomfort was significantly higher (p < 0.001) for BFR (dz = 0.78). No differences (p > 0.05) in blood lactate concentration or rating of perceived exertion were observed between conditions. Blood flow-restricted RSE reduced performance and likely increased the physiological and perceptual stimulus for the periphery with greater reliance on anaerobic glycolysis, despite comparable or decreased systemic demands.

Automatic adjustment of cycle ergometer power output to accurately clamp heart rate.

We assessed the accuracy and inter-sessional reliability of traditional (manual) compared to automatic (AutoHR) heart rate (HR) clamping methods during submaximal intensity continuous cycling. On separate occasions, thirteen males cycled at an HR corresponding to 80% of the ventilatory threshold for 18 min. Cycling power output was adjusted using either manual or AutoHR methods, encompassing three trials per method. For the manual method, cycling power output was adjusted every 30 s by 0, 5 or 10 W at the experimenter's discretion. Conversely, AutoHR automatically adjusted power output based on the difference between target and actual HR. Participants' HR was measured at 1 Hz. Root-mean square error (RMSE) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated from the difference between measured and target HR to represent accuracy and reliability of each method. The RMSE for the manual method (3.2 ± 2.6 bpm) was significantly higher compared to AutoHR (2.8 ± 2.3 bpm) (p < 0.01, r = 0.13); inter-day ICC were 0.92 and 0.89 for manual adjustment and AutoHR, respectively. Automatic methods to clamp HR are more accurate than manual approaches during submaximal intensity continuous cycling and can be easily implemented for uniform HR control in individual and group training sessions at minimal cost.

Recovery following exercise-induced fatigue: Influence of a single heart rate clamped cycling session under systemic hypoxia.

We investigated whether a single heart rate clamped cycling session under systemic hypoxia affects the recovery of physical and psycho-physiological responses from residual fatigue compared to normoxia. On separate occasions, twelve trained males performed a 3-d acute training camp scenario. On days 1 and 3, participants cycled for 60 min at a constant heart rate (80% of ventilatory threshold). On day 2, fatigue was induced through a simulated team game circuit (STGC), followed by a 60-min intervention of either: (1) heart rate clamped cycling in normoxia; (2) heart rate clamped cycling in hypoxia (simulated altitude ~ 3500 m); or (3) no cycling. Countermovement jump height and leg stiffness were assessed before and after every session. Perceptual fatigue was evaluated daily. Compared to baseline, jump height decreased at all timepoints following the STGC (all p < 0.05). Leg stiffness and cycling power output only decreased immediately following the STGC, with a 48% further decrease in cycling power output in hypoxia compared to normoxia (p < 0.05). Perceived fatigue, decreased sleep quality, and increased muscle soreness responses occurred on day 3 (p < 0.05). A single heart rate-clamped cycling session in hypoxia reduced mechanical output without affecting recovery of physical performance and perceptual measures from residual fatigue induced through team sport activity.

Hypoxia Does Not Impair Resistance Exercise Performance or Amplify Post-Exercise Fatigue.

Purpose: To determine whether performing resistance exercise in hypoxia acutely reduces performance and increases markers of fatigue, and whether these responses are exaggerated if exercising at high versus low work rates (i.e., exercising to failure or volume matched non-failure). Methods: Following a within-subject design, 20 men completed two trials in hypoxia (13% oxygen) and two in normoxia (21% oxygen). The first session for hypoxic and normoxic conditions comprised six sets of bench press and shoulder press to failure (high work rate), while subsequent sessions involved the same volume distributed over 12 sets (low work rate). Physical performance (concentric velocity) and perceptual responses were measured during exercise and for 72 hr post-exercise. Neuromuscular performance (bench throw velocity) was assessed pre- and post-session. Results: Hypoxia did not affect physical performance, neuromuscular performance, and perceptual recovery when exercising at high or low work rates. Higher work rate exercise caused greater acute decrements in physical performance and post-exercise neuromuscular performance and increased perceived exertion and muscle soreness (p ≤ 0.006), irrespective of hypoxia. Conclusions: Hypoxia does not impact on resistance exercise performance or increase markers of physical and perceptual fatigue. Higher exercise work rates may impair physical performance, and exaggerate fatigue compared to low work rate exercise, irrespective of environmental condition. Practitioners can prescribe hypoxic resistance exercise without compromising physical performance or inducing greater levels of fatigue. For athletes who are required to train with high frequency, decreasing exercise work rate may reduce post-exercise markers of fatigue for the same training volume.

Current Implementation and Barriers to Using Blood Flow Restriction Training: Insights From a Survey of Allied Health Practitioners.

ABSTRACT: Scott, BR, Marston, KJ, Owens, J, Rolnick, N, and Patterson, SD. Current implementation and barriers to using blood flow restriction training: Insights from a survey of allied health practitioners. J Strength Cond Res 38(3): 481-490, 2024-This study investigated the use of blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise by practitioners working specifically with clinical or older populations, and the barriers preventing some practitioners from prescribing BFR. An online survey was disseminated globally to allied health practitioners, with data from 397 responders included in analyses. Responders who had prescribed BFR exercise ( n = 308) completed questions about how they implement this technique. Those who had not prescribed BFR exercise ( n = 89) provided information on barriers to using this technique, and a subset of these responders ( n = 22) completed a follow-up survey to investigate how these barriers could be alleviated. Most practitioners prescribe BFR exercise for musculoskeletal rehabilitation clients (91.6%), with the BFR cuff pressure typically relative to arterial occlusion pressure (81.1%) and implemented with resistance (96.8%) or aerobic exercise (42.9%). Most practitioners screen for contraindications (68.2%), although minor side effects, including muscle soreness (65.8%), are common. The main barriers preventing some practitioners from using BFR are lack of equipment (60.2%), insufficient education (55.7%), and safety concerns (31.8%). Suggestions to alleviate these barriers included developing educational resources about the safe application and benefits of BFR exercise ( n = 20) that are affordable ( n = 3) and convenient ( n = 4). These results indicate that BFR prescription for clinical and older cohorts mainly conforms with current guidelines, which is important considering the potentially increased risk for adverse events in these cohorts. However, barriers still prevent broader utility of BFR training, although some may be alleviated through well-developed educational offerings to train practitioners in using BFR exercise.

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.

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.

The intensity of a resistance exercise session can be quantified by the work rate of exercise.

PURPOSE: Athletes regularly perform resistance training, yet it is unknown how best to monitor its intensity. This study compared different resistance exercise intensity metrics to determine their sensitivity to manipulating work rate (via altering inter-set rest and load). METHODS: Following baseline testing for 10- and 3-repetition maximum (RM; squat and bench press), fourteen trained participants completed four volume-matched protocols in a randomised order: 3x10 with 85% 10RM, 60 s rest (3x1060s); 3x10 with 85% 10RM, 180 s (3x10180s); 8x3 with 85% 3RM, 120 s (8x3120s); 8x3 with 85% 3RM, 300 s (8x3300s). Internal intensity was quantified via rate of oxygen consumption ([Formula: see text]), heart rate, blood lactate concentration, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE). External intensity was assessed via previously developed "Training-Intensity" (TI) and "Intensity-Index" (II) metrics, and from exercise work rate (expressed as kg∙min-1 and joules∙min-1). RESULTS: Internal intensity and work-rate metrics were highest for 3x1060s, followed by 3x10180s, 8x3120s and 8x3300s (p≤0.027). TI and II were higher for 8x3 than 3x10 protocols (p<0.001), but not different within these configurations. Internal intensity measures were more strongly correlated with work rate (r = 0.37-0.96) than TI and II (r = -0.42-0.33) metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Work rate corroborated objective internal intensity metrics during resistance exercise, with the highest work rate session (3x1060s) also eliciting greater RPE scores than other protocols. In contrast, the TI and II did not agree with other intensity measures, likely because they do not consider rest periods. Practitioners can plan for the physiological and perceptual demands of resistance training by estimating work rate.

Maintenance of internal load despite a stepwise reduction in external load during moderate intensity heart rate clamped cycling with acute graded normobaric hypoxia in males.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the acute effects of graded hypoxia on external and internal loads during 60 min of endurance cycling at a clamped heart rate. DESIGN: Repeated measures. METHODS: On separate visits, 16 trained males cycled for 60 min at a clamped heart rate corresponding to 80 % of their first ventilatory threshold at sea-level and 2500 m, 3000 m, 3500 m and 4000 m simulated altitudes (inspired oxygen fractions of 20.9 %, 15.4 %, 14.5 %, 13.6 % and 12.7 %, respectively). Markers of external (power output) and internal (blood lactate concentration, tissue saturation index, cardio-respiratory and perceptual responses) loads were measured every 15 min during cycling. Neuromuscular function of knee extensors was characterised pre- and post-exercise. RESULTS: Compared to sea-level (101 ±â€¯22 W), there was a stepwise reduction in power output with increasing hypoxia severity (-17.9 ±â€¯8.9 %, -27.1 ±â€¯10.7 %, -34.2 ±â€¯12.0 % and - 44.6 ±â€¯15.1 % at 2500 m, 3000 m, 3500 m, and 4000 m, respectively, all p < 0.05). Blood lactate and tissue saturation index were not different across hypoxia severities, and perceptual responses were exacerbated at 4000 m only, with increased breathing difficulty. Knee extensor torque decreased post-exercise (-14.5 ±â€¯9.0 %, p < 0.05), independent of condition. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing hypoxia severity reduces cycling power output and arterial oxygen saturation in a stepwise fashion without affecting exercise responses between sea-level and simulated altitudes up to 3500 m despite breathing difficulty being elevated at 4000 m.

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.

The velocity of resistance exercise does not accurately assess repetitions-in-reserve.

This study assessed the reliability of mean concentric bar velocity from 3- to 0-repetitions in reserve (RIR) across four sets in different exercises (bench press and prone row) and with different loads (60 and 80% 1-repetition maximum; 1RM). Whether velocity values from set one could be used to predict RIR in subsequent sets was also examined. Twenty recreationally active males performed baseline 1RM testing before two randomised sessions of four sets to failure with 60 or 80% 1RM. A linear position transducer measured mean concentric velocity of repetitions, and the velocity associated with each RIR value up to 0-RIR. For both exercises, velocity decreased between each repetition from 3- to 0-RIR (p ≤ 0.010). Mean concentric velocity of RIR values was not reliable across sets in the bench press (mean intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.40, mean coefficient of variation [CV] = 21.3%), despite no significant between-set differences (p = 0.530). Better reliability was noted in the prone row (mean ICC = 0.80, mean CV = 6.1%), but velocity declined by 0.019-0.027 m·s-1 (p = 0.032) between sets. Mean concentric velocity was 0.050-0.058 m·s-1 faster in both exercises with 60% than 80% 1RM with (p < 0.001). At the individual level, the velocity of specific RIR values from set one accurately predicted RIR from 5- to 0-RIR for 30.9% of repetitions in subsequent sets. These findings suggest that velocity of specific RIR values vary across exercises, loads and sets. As velocity-based RIR estimates were not accurate for 69.1% of repetitions, alternative methods to should be considered for autoregulating of resistance exercise in recreationally active individuals.

Bar velocity of bench press and prone row repetitions decreases on average from 3- to 0-repetitions in reserve (RIR) and is faster for lighter versus heavier loadsThe velocity of 3- to 0-RIR varied across four sets for the prone row but was more reliable for the prone row than the bench pressAt the individual participant level, there was not a consistent decrease in velocity between consecutive repetitions, and target velocities for specific RIR values were not correctly predicted in most cases.Using velocity stops may not be an appropriate method to predict specific RIR in recreationally active individuals.

Physical preparation of the Australian national male field hockey team exceeded the movement demands of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games tournament.

This investigation explored differences in the pre-tournament preparation period relative to the movement demands of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games for the Australian male field-hockey team. Movement data was collected over 7 months prior to and during the 13-day Olympic tournament. Duration, distance (total; >80% individual peak velocity; >5 m.s-1), high-speed decelerations (>3.5 m.s-2), and total accelerations and decelerations (>2.5 m.s-2) were measured during each running-based session. A 13-day moving sum was calculated for each variable and compared to a player-specific "worst-case scenario" (WCS) for intra-tournament total movement demands. Summed 13-day movement demands exceeded the WCS for 6-58% of the preparation period across variables, for the entire squad. During the tournament, midfielders covered significantly greater sprint distance than Defenders (+84%,p = 0.020), with no other positional differences found. Greater variation in tournament movement demands was observed between players for accelerations, decelerations, and high-speed distance (CV = 19-46%) compared to duration and distance (CV = 4-9%). In conclusion, physical preparation exposed athletes to movement demands which surpassed WCS. Additionally, gross measures of training volume (duration and distance) are more generalisable to a squad; however, additional metrics such as sprint distance and high-speed decelerations are needed to better define positional and individual movement demands, and therefore, should be monitored by practitioners.

Blood-Flow Restriction Is Associated With More Even Pacing During High-Intensity Cycling.

PURPOSE: This study examined the influence of blood-flow restriction (BFR) on the distribution of pace, physiological demands, and perceptual responses during self-paced cycling. METHODS: On separate days, 12 endurance cyclists/triathletes were instructed to produce the greatest average power output during 8-minute self-paced cycling trials with BFR (60% arterial occlusion pressure) or without restriction (CON). Power output and cardiorespiratory variables were measured continuously. Perceived exertion, muscular discomfort, and cuff pain were recorded every 2 minutes. RESULTS: Linear regression analysis of the power output slope was statistically significant (ie, deviated from the intercept) for CON (2.7 [3.2] W·30 s-1; P = .009) but not for BFR (-0.1 [3.1] W·30 s-1; P = .952). Absolute power output was ∼24% (12%) lower at all time points (P < .001) during BFR compared with CON. Oxygen consumption (18% [12%]; P < .001), heart rate (7% [9%]; P < .001), and perceived exertion (8% [21%]; P = .008) were reduced during BFR compared with CON, whereas muscular discomfort (25% [35%]; P = .003) was greater. Cuff pain was rated as "strong" (5.3 [1.8] au; 0-10 scale) for BFR. CONCLUSION: Trained cyclists adopted a more even distribution of pace when BFR was applied compared with a negative distribution during CON. By presenting a unique combination of physiological and perceptual responses, BFR is a useful tool to understand how the distribution of pace is self-regulated.

Blood flow restriction during self-paced aerobic intervals reduces mechanical and cardiovascular demands without modifying neuromuscular fatigue.

This study examined cardiovascular, perceptual and neuromuscular fatigue characteristics during and after cycling intervals with and without blood flow restriction (BFR). Fourteen endurance cyclists/triathletes completed four 4-minute self-paced aerobic cycling intervals at the highest sustainable intensity, with and without intermittent BFR (60% of arterial occlusion pressure). Rest interval durations were six, four and four minutes, respectively. Power output, cardiovascular demands and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were averaged over each interval. Knee extension torque and vastus lateralis electromyography responses following electrical stimulation of the femoral nerve were recorded pre-exercise, post-interval one (+1, 2 and 4-minutes) and post-interval four (+1, 2, 4, 6 and 8-minutes). Power output during BFR intervals was lower than non-BFR (233 ± 54 vs 282 ± 60 W, p < 0.001). Oxygen uptake and heart rate during BFR intervals were lower compared to non-BFR (38.7 ± 4.5 vs 44.7 ± 6.44 mL kg-1 min-1, p < 0.001; 160 ± 14 vs 166 ± 10 bpm, p < 0.001), while RPE was not different between conditions. Compared to pre-exercise, maximal voluntary contraction torque and peak twitch torque were reduced after the first interval with further reductions following the fourth interval (p < 0.001) independent of condition (p = 0.992). Voluntary activation (twitch interpolation) did not change between timepoints (p = 0.375). Overall, intermittent BFR reduced the mechanical and cardiovascular demands of self-paced intervals without modifying RPE or knee-extensor neuromuscular characteristics. Therefore, BFR reduced the cardiovascular demands while maintaining the muscular demands associated with self-paced intervals. Self-paced BFR intervals could be used to prevent cardiovascular and perceptual demands being the limiting factor of exercise intensity, thus allowing greater physiological muscular demands compared to intervals without BFR.HighlightsThe use of blood flow restriction (BFR) during self-paced intervals (at the highest perceived sustainable intensity) causes a reduction in power output, pulmonary oxygen uptake and heart rate compared with non-restricted self-paced intervals.Despite lower mechanical and physiological demands during BFR cycling, the magnitude and aetiology of neuromuscular fatigue were not different to intervals without BFR, indicating the internal muscular load during BFR was elevated and potentially equivalent compared to without BFR.Self-paced intervals could be a suitable model to prescribe aerobic BFR exercise as an adjunct training stimulus for endurance cyclists.

Low- to moderate-intensity blood flow restricted walking is not an acute equivalent for unrestricted jogging in young active adults.

This study investigated whether walking with blood flow restriction (BFR) increases acute cardio-respiratory demands to the point that it can be considered an alternative for jogging. Sixteen physically active adults completed five experimental sessions (order randomised), comprising 10 min of treadmill exercise. Two sessions included unrestricted walking, two sessions required walking with BFR cuffs positioned on the lower limbs inflated to 60% of individualised arterial occlusion pressure, and one session was conducted at a jogging pace. Comfortable walking and jogging speeds were calculated during the familiarisation session. Walking speeds were individualised to either 100% (speed: 6.0 ± 0.3km·h-1[low-intensity]) or 120% (speed: 7.2 ± 0.3km·h-1[moderate-intensity]) of comfortable walking speed. The jogging session was unrestricted (speed: 9.1 ± 0.7km·h-1). Initial analysis compared walking conditions across heart rate, left cardiac work index, systolic blood pressure, relative oxygen consumption, minute ventilation, rating of perceived exertion and limb discomfort. Secondary analysis compared the walking session with the highest cardio-respiratory demands to jogging. Initial analysis identified that moderate-intensity with BFR induced the highest cardio-respiratory and perceptual responses compared with any other walking sessions (p < 0.01). Secondary analysis revealed that all cardio-respiratory measures were higher during jogging when compared with moderate-intensity with BFR (p < 0.01), except systolic blood pressure (p = 0.10). All perceptual measures were higher during moderate-intensity with BFR (p < 0.01) compared with jogging. Low- to moderate-intensity BFR-walking produces lower acute cardio-respiratory responses at higher ratings of perceived exertion and discomfort compared with jogging. Overall, BFR-walking does not seem to provide an equivalent exercise modality for unrestricted jogging in physically active adults.HighlightsIn young active adults, walking with blood flow restriction increases cardio-respiratory demands, yet not to a level equivalent to jogging.Moderate-intensity blood flow restricted walking elicits higher exercise-related sensation of exertion and leg discomfort than jogging.Blood flow restriction application increases exercise severity whereby moderate-intensity BFR-walking and jogging are both considered vigorous-intensity exercise.

Acute physiological responses to steady-state arm cycling ergometry with and without blood flow restriction.

PURPOSE: To compare heart rate (HR), oxygen consumption (VO2), blood lactate (BL), and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) during arm cycling with and without a blood flow restriction (BFR). METHODS: Twelve healthy males (age: 23.9 ± 3.75 years) completed four, randomized, 15-min arm cycling conditions: high-workload (HW: 60% maximal power output), low-workload (LW: 30% maximal power output), low-workload with BFR (LW-BFR), and BFR with no exercise (BFR-only). In the BFR conditions, cuff pressure to the proximal biceps brachii was set to 70% of occlusion pressure. HR, VO2, and RPE were recorded throughout the exercise, and BL was measured before, immediately after, and five minutes post-exercise. Within-subject repeated-measures ANOVA was used to evaluate condition-by-time interactions. RESULTS: HW elicited the greatest responses in HR (91% of peak; 163.3 ± 15.8 bpm), VO2 (71% of peak; 24.0 ± 3.7 ml kg-1 min-1), BL (7.7 ± 2.5 mmol L-1), and RPE (14 ± 1.7) and was significantly different from the other conditions (p < 0.01). The LW and LW-BFR conditions did not differ from each other in HR, VO2, BL, and RPE mean of conditions: ~ 68%, 41%, 3.5 ± 1.6 mmol L-1, 10.4 ± 1.6, respectively; p > 0.05). During the BFR-only condition, HR increased from baseline by ~ 15% (on average) (p < 0.01) without any changes in VO2, BL, and RPE (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: HW arm cycling elicited the largest and most persistent physiological responses compared to LW arm cycling with and without a BFR. As such, practitioners who prescribe arm cycling for their clients should be advised to augment the demands of exercise via increases in exercise intensity (i.e., power output), rather than by adding BFR.

Investigating the Link between Later-Life Brain Volume and Cardiorespiratory Fitness after Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Exposure.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence suggests that maintaining a higher level of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) later in life can offer some protection against brain volume loss as we age. By contrast, mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) could accelerate age-related cortical atrophy. The current study sought to examine whether variations in the CRF level modified the association between mTBI history and brain volumetric measures in a sample of older adults. METHODS: Seventy-nine community-dwelling older adults (mean age 68.7 ± 4.3 years, 54.4% female) were assessed for their mTBI history: 25 participants (32%) reported sustaining at least one lifetime mTBI. Participants also underwent a CRF assessment and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to obtain global and region-of-interest volumes. RESULTS: Analysis of covariance, controlling for age, sex, education, and apolipoprotein (APOE) ε4 allele carriage, revealed that participants with a history of mTBI had a significantly larger total mean grey matter volume (582.21 ± 12.46 cm3) in comparison to participants with no mTBI history (571.08 ± 17.21 cm3, p = 0.01 after correction for multiple comparisons). However, no differences between groups based on mTBI history were found for total white matter volume or in any other cortical or subcortical structures examined. A subsequent moderation analysis found that CRF was predominantly non-influential on the association between mTBI history and the MRI-quantified measures of brain volume. CONCLUSION: While unexpected, the findings suggest that a history of mTBI can lead to grey matter alterations in the ageing brain. However, concurrent variations in the CRF level did not influence the differences in brain volume found based on mTBI exposure status.

Load-velocity relationships and predicted maximal strength: A systematic review of the validity and reliability of current methods.

Maximal strength can be predicted from the load-velocity relationship (LVR), although it is important to understand methodological approaches which ensure the validity and reliability of these strength predictions. The aim of this systematic review was to determine factors which influence the validity of maximal strength predictions from the LVR, and secondarily to highlight the effects of these factors on the reliability of predictions. A search strategy was developed and implemented in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL databases. Rayyan software was used to screen titles, abstracts, and full texts to determine their inclusion/eligibility. Eligible studies compared direct assessments of one-repetition maximum (1RM) with predictions performed using the LVR and reported prediction validity. Validity was extracted and represented graphically via effect size forest plots. Twenty-five eligible studies were included and comprised of a total of 842 participants, three different 1RM prediction methods, 16 different exercises, and 12 different velocity monitoring devices. Four primary factors appear relevant to the efficacy of predicting 1RM: the number of loads used, the exercise examined, the velocity metric used, and the velocity monitoring device. Additionally, the specific loads, provision of velocity feedback, use of lifting straps and regression model used may require further consideration.

Self-Paced Cycling at the Highest Sustainable Intensity With Blood Flow Restriction Reduces External but Not Internal Training Loads.

PURPOSE: This study compared training loads and internal:external load ratios from an aerobic interval session at the highest perceptually sustainable intensity with and without blood flow restriction (BFR). METHODS: On separate days, 14 endurance cyclists/triathletes completed four 4-minute self-paced aerobic cycling intervals at their highest sustainable intensity, with and without BFR (60% of arterial occlusion pressure). Internal training load was quantified using 3 training impulses (TRIMP; Banister, Lucia, and Edwards) and sessional ratings of perceived exertion. External load was assessed using total work done (TWD). Training load ratios between all internal loads were calculated relative to TWD. RESULTS: Lucia TRIMP was lower for the BFR compared with non-BFR session (49 [9] vs 53 [8] arbitrary units [au], P = .020, dz = -0.71). No between-conditions differences were observed for Banister TRIMP (P = .068), Edwards TRIMP (P = .072), and training load in sessional ratings of perceived exertion (P = .134). The TWD was lower for the BFR compared with non-BFR session (223 [52] vs 271 [58] kJ, P < .001, dz = -1.27). Ratios were greater for the BFR session compared with non-BFR for Lucia TRIMP:TWD (0.229 [0.056] vs 0.206 [0.056] au, P < .001, dz = 1.21), Edwards TRIMP:TWD (0.396 [0.105] vs 0.370 [0.088] au, P = .031, dz = 0.66), and training load in sessional ratings of perceived exertion:TWD (1.000 [0.266] vs 0.890 [0.275] au, P = .044, dz = 0.60), but not Banister TRIMP:TWD (P = .306). CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners should consider both internal and external loads when monitoring BFR exercise to ensure the demands are appropriately captured. These BFR-induced changes were reflected by the Lucia TRIMP:TWD and Edwards TRIMP:TWD ratio, which could be used to monitor aerobic BFR training loads. The Lucia TRIMP:TWD ratio likely represents BFR-induced changes more appropriately compared with ratios involving either Edwards or Banister TRIMP.