Comparing Conditioning Methods: Implications For Practical Blood Flow Restriction Exercise

Abstract

Previous research has shown that conditioning individuals to a relative pressure, surrounded by pressures too high and too low, may provide a suitable means for pressure application among practical blood flow restriction users. However, it is unknown if applying only the target pressure repeatedly would be as effective, compared to using a range of pressures. PURPOSE: To compare two separate conditioning methods (target pressure only vs. range of pressures) in the ability to estimate the target restriction pressure. METHODS: 35 participants (20 M, 15 F) were tested over 4 lab visits, involving measurements for arterial occlusion, and pressure estimations at 5-minutes and 24-hours following two separate conditioning methods. Participants arrived to the lab and proceeded to lie supine for a 10-minute rest period. The constrained method involved applying 40% of predetermined arterial occlusion, along with 10% above and below this pressure. The unconstrained method was time-matched, and involved a series of inflations to 40% arterial occlusion for 12 seconds, and then deflated for 22 seconds. Differences were assessed using BAIN. Three plausible hypotheses (H0, H1, and H2) were compared: e.g. H0 indicates the null hypothesis; H1 indicates the mean of variable 1 is bigger than the mean of variable 2; and, H2 indicates the mean of variable 1 is smaller than the mean of variable 2. Specific hypotheses were evaluated by comparing posterior probabilities. Data is presented as mean differences (95% credible interval). RESULTS: The absolute error between methods (unconstrained and constrained) was found to be similar at 5-minutes [-1.1 (5.9, 3.7) mmHg; H0: 0.728; H1: 0.089; H2: 0.183] and 24-hours [-2.4 (-7, 2.2) mmHg; H0: 0.634; H1: 0.056; H2: 0.310] post. The constant error between methods was found to differ at 5-minutes [-8.2 (-14.4, -1.9) mmHg; H0: 0.101; H1: 0.005; H2: 0.894] but was similar at 24-hours [-2.5 (-8.5, 3.6) mmHg; H0: 0.680; H1: 0.068; H2: 0.252] post. CONCLUSIONS: Each conditioning method produced similar levels of absolute error, indicating that either may be a viable method of pressure application. Studies implementing practical blood flow restriction have the option to utilize either conditioning method to estimate a relative pressure, around 40% of the resting arterial occlusion pressure.