Back to Search Start Over

The addition of blood flow restriction during resistance exercise does not increase prolonged low‐frequency force depression.

Authors :
Pignanelli, Christopher
Robertson, Alexa A.
Hirsch, Steven M.
Power, Geoffrey A.
Burr, Jamie F.
Source :
Experimental Physiology. May2024, Vol. 109 Issue 5, p738-753. 16p.
Publication Year :
2024

Abstract

At a given exercise intensity, blood flow restriction (BFR) reduces the volume of exercise required to impair post‐exercise neuromuscular function. Compared to traditional exercise, the time course of recovery is less clear. After strenuous exercise, force output assessed with electrical muscle stimulation is impaired to a greater extent at low versus high stimulation frequencies, a condition known as prolonged low‐frequency force depression (PLFFD). It is unclear if BFR increases PLFFD after exercise. This study tested if BFR during exercise increases PLFFD and slows recovery of neuromuscular function compared to regular exercise. Fifteen physically active participants performed six low‐load sets of knee‐extensions across four conditions: resistance exercise to task failure (RETF), resistance exercise to task failure with BFR applied continuously (BFRCONT) or intermittently (BFRINT), and resistance exercise matched to the lowest exercise volume condition (REVM). Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) force output, voluntary activation and a force–frequency (1–100 Hz) curve were measured before and 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 24 h after exercise. Exercise to task failure caused similar reductions at 0 h for voluntary activation (RETF = 81.0 ± 14.2%, BFRINT = 80.9 ± 12.4% and BFRCONT = 78.6 ± 10.7%) and MVC force output (RETF = 482 ± 168 N, BFRINT = 432 ± 174 N, and BFRCONT = 443 ± 196 N), which recovered to baseline values between 4 and 24 h. PLFFD occurred only after RETF at 1 h supported by a higher frequency to evoke 50% of the force production at 100 Hz (1 h: 17.5 ± 4.4 vs. baseline: 15 ± 4.1 Hz, P = 0.0023), BFRINT (15.5 ± 4.0 Hz; P = 0.03), and REVM (14.9 ± 3.1 Hz; P = 0.002), with a trend versus BFRCONT (15.7 ± 3.5 Hz; P = 0.063). These findings indicate that, in physically active individuals, using BFR during exercise does not impair the recovery of neuromuscular function by 24 h post‐exercise. What is the central question of this study?Does the addition of blood flow restriction (BFR) during resistance exercise impaired recovery of neuromuscular function in physically active individuals?What is the main finding and its importance?While BFR during exercise increased fatiguability compared to exercise without BFR, it did not further impair the 24‐h recovery in neuromuscular function compared to exercise without BFR. These findings are relevant for applying BFR exercise in the training and/or rehabilitation of physically active populations such that it does not appear to further exacerbate muscle contractile function compared to regular strenuous exercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
09580670
Volume :
109
Issue :
5
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
Experimental Physiology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
176927568
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1113/EP091753