A moderate blood flow restriction pressure does not affect maximal strength or neuromuscular responses

No Thumbnail Available
Authors
Lubiak, S. M.
Lawson, J. L.
Gonzalez-Rojas, D. H.
Proppe, Christopher E.
Rivera, P. M.
Hammer, S. M.
Trevino, M. A.
Dinyer-McNeely, T. K.
Montgomery, T. R.
Olmos, A. A.
Advisors
Issue Date
2024-12
Type
Article
Keywords
Blood flow restriction , Neuromuscular responses , Strength
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Citation
Lubiak, S. M., Lawson, J. E., Gonzalez Rojas, D. H., Proppe, C. E., Rivera, P. M., Hammer, S. M., Trevino, M. A., Dinyer-McNeely, T. K., Montgomery, T. R., Jr, Olmos, A. A., Sears, K. N., Bergstrom, H. C., Succi, P. J., Keller, J. L., & Hill, E. C. (2024). A Moderate Blood Flow Restriction Pressure Does Not Affect Maximal Strength or Neuromuscular Responses. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 38(12):p e727-e734, December 2024. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004907
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) applied at 60% of total arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) on maximal strength. Eleven college-aged female subjects completed two testing sessions of maximal unilateral concentric, isometric, and eccentric leg extension muscle actions performed with and without BFR. Separate 3 (mode [isometric, concentric, eccentric]) × 2 (condition [BFR, no BFR]) × 2 (visit [2, 3]) repeated-measures analysis of variances were used to examine mean differences in maximal strength, neuromuscular function, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and pain. For maximal strength (collapsed across condition and visit), isometric (128.5 ± 22.7 Nm) and eccentric (114.5 ± 35.4 Nm) strength were greater than concentric maximal strength (89.3 ± 22.3 Nm) ( p < 0.001-0.041). Muscle excitation relative (%) to isometric non-BFR was greater during the concentric (108.6 ± 31.5%) than during the eccentric (86.7 ± 29.2%) ( p = 0.045) assessments but not different than isometric (93.4 ± 17.9%) ( p = 0.109) assessments, collapsed across condition and visit. For RPE, there was an interaction such that RPE was greater during non-BFR (4.3 ± 1.7) than during BFR (3.7 ± 1.7) ( p = 0.031) during the maximal concentric strength assessments. Furthermore, during maximal strength assessments performed with BFR, isometric RPE (5.8 ± 1.9) was greater than concentric (3.7 ± 1.7) ( p = 0.005) and eccentric (4.6 ± 1.9) ( p = 0.009) RPE. Finally, pain was greater during the isometric (2.8 ± 2.1 au) than during the concentric (1.8 ± 1.5 au) ( p = 0.016), but not eccentric, maximal strength assessments (2.1 ± 1.6 au) ( p = 0.126), collapsed across condition and visit. The application of BFR at 60% AOP did not affect concentric, isometric, or eccentric maximal strength or neuromuscular function. Trainers, clinicians, and researchers can prescribe exercise interventions relative to a restricted (when using a moderate AOP) or nonrestricted assessment of maximal strength.

Table of Contents
Description
Publisher
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Journal
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Book Title
Series
PubMed ID
ISSN
1064-8011
1533-4287
EISSN