Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to clarify whether blood-flow restriction during resting intervals [resting blood-flow restriction (rBFR)] is comparable to a continuous BFR (cBFR) training regarding its effects on maximum strength, hypertrophy, fatigue resistance, and perceived discomfort. Materials and Methods: Nineteen recreationally trained participants performed four sets (30-15-15-15 repetitions) with 20% 1RM on a 45° leg press twice a week for 6 weeks (cBFR, n = 10; rBFR, n = 9). Maximum strength, fatigue resistance, muscle thickness, and girth were assessed at three timepoints (pre, mid, and post). Subjective pain and perceived exertion were determined immediately after training at two timepoints (mid and post). Results: Maximum strength (p < 0.001), fatigue resistance (p < 0.001), muscle thickness (p < 0.001), and girth (p = 0.008) increased in both groups over time with no differences between groups (p > 0.05). During the intervention, the rBFR group exposed significantly lower perceived pain and exertion values compared to cBFR (p < 0.05). Discussion: Resting blood-flow restriction training led to similar gains in strength, fatigue resistance, and muscle hypertrophy as cBFR training while provoking less discomfort and perceived exertion in participants. In summary, rBFR training could provide a meaningful alternative to cBFR as this study showed similar functional and structural changes as well as less discomfort.
Highlights
The purpose of this study was to clarify whether blood-flow restriction during resting intervals [resting blood-flow restriction] is comparable to a continuous BFR training regarding its effects on maximum strength, hypertrophy, fatigue resistance, and perceived discomfort
While resting blood-flow restriction (rBFR) increased their total tonnage from 4446.43 ± 699.17 to 4895.83 ± 581.28 kg (∆ +449.4 kg, 10.11%), continuous BFR (cBFR) increased total tonnage in a similar extent [4966.67 ± 1343.62 to 5126.2 ± 1131.93 kg (∆ +159.58 kg, 3.21%)]
Since training weight was the only variable which changed throughout the study, total tonnage did not differ at any timepoint or between groups over time (p > 0.05)
Summary
The purpose of this study was to clarify whether blood-flow restriction during resting intervals [resting blood-flow restriction (rBFR)] is comparable to a continuous BFR (cBFR) training regarding its effects on maximum strength, hypertrophy, fatigue resistance, and perceived discomfort. BFR-training is characterized by a short-term, external restriction of the blood flow of the exercising muscles during the training session (Loenneke, 2011) This restriction is usually induced by inflatable cuffs or elastic bands which are wrapped around the proximal parts of the upper or lower extremities and typically applied with an individual cuff pressure ranging between 50 and 200 mmHg (Loenneke et al, 2012). Since the cuffs are kept inflated throughout the entire exercise, the applied pressure alters the blood flow through a reduction in arterial influx and a concomitant block of venous return This creates a state of increased metabolic stress for the exercising muscles due to the inability to remove the accumulated metabolites through the venous system (Pearson and Hussain, 2015)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
