Effects Of Upper And Lower Body Blood Flow Restriction Training On Subjective Assessments

PURPOSE: To characterize the effects of upper and lower body autoregulated blood flow restriction (AR-BFR), non-autoregulated BFR (NAR-BFR), and no BFR on rating perceived exertion (RPE), rating perceived discomfort (RPD), and gauge of a 1-10 Likert scale on the likelihood of performing the exercise training again. AR-BFR pressure cuffs adjust pressure automatically, maintaining a similar pressure during concentric and eccentric phases. However, NAR-BFR pressure cuffs do not accommodate for larger muscle diameters during the concentric phase, creating higher limb pressures compared to the eccentric phase. METHODS: Accordingly, 33 adults (21 ± 2 years; 11 females) participated in the upper body and 20 adults (23 ± 5 years; 7 females) participated in the lower body in treatment-order exercise sessions with AR-BFR, NAR-BFR, and no BFR in a randomized fashion separated by 1-week and included a familiarization session. All participants in the upper body sessions performed four sets of dumbbell curls and all participants in the lower body sessions performed four sets of wall squats with handheld dumbbells to volitional fatigue using 20% of their 1-RM with 2-second cadence and 1 minute rest periods. Cuffs were placed at the proximal portion of the arms and thighs, and limb occlusion pressure (LOP) was set at 60% of supine LOP for both BFR treatments during the exercise and rest periods for both the upper and lower body sessions, respectively. Subjective measurements of RPE, RPD, and the 1-10 Likert scale were taken immediately post-exercise while the cuffs were inflated. Two-way ANOVAs were conducted on variables of interest. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in RPE between AR-BFR, NAR-BFR, and no BFR in the upper and lower body sessions (p = 0.13). There was a significant difference in RDP between upper body AR-BFR and no BFR (mean difference (MD) = 2.23 ± 0.47, p < 0.01) and upper body NAR-BFR and no BFR (mean difference (MD) = 1.32 ± 0.47, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of BFR does not appear to influence subjective ratings of exertion in the upper and lower limbs. Additionally, AR-BFR and NAR-BFR devices may cause more subjective discomfort compared to no BFR.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2024-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0001060920.34828.c8
Primary Topic
Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Effects Of Upper And Lower Body Blood Flow Restriction Training On Subjective Assessments

Brent Fedorko, Lisa Marquette, Nicholas Rolnick, Susannah Taylor et al.
1 links
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
article

Effects Of Upper And Lower Body Blood Flow Restriction Training On Subjective Assessments

Brent Fedorko, Lisa Marquette, Nicholas Rolnick, Susannah Taylor, Jessica Walters, Masoud Azadi Moghaddam, Sean Zupnik, Tim Werner
article en

Abstract

PURPOSE: To characterize the effects of upper and lower body autoregulated blood flow restriction (AR-BFR), non-autoregulated BFR (NAR-BFR), and no BFR on rating perceived exertion (RPE), rating perceived discomfort (RPD), and gauge of a 1-10 Likert scale on the likelihood of performing the exercise training again. AR-BFR pressure cuffs adjust pressure automatically, maintaining a similar pressure during concentric and eccentric phases. However, NAR-BFR pressure cuffs do not accommodate for larger muscle diameters during the concentric phase, creating higher limb pressures compared to the eccentric phase. METHODS: Accordingly, 33 adults (21 ± 2 years; 11 females) participated in the upper body and 20 adults (23 ± 5 years; 7 females) participated in the lower body in treatment-order exercise sessions with AR-BFR, NAR-BFR, and no BFR in a randomized fashion separated by 1-week and included a familiarization session. All participants in the upper body sessions performed four sets of dumbbell curls and all participants in the lower body sessions performed four sets of wall squats with handheld dumbbells to volitional fatigue using 20% of their 1-RM with 2-second cadence and 1 minute rest periods. Cuffs were placed at the proximal portion of the arms and thighs, and limb occlusion pressure (LOP) was set at 60% of supine LOP for both BFR treatments during the exercise and rest periods for both the upper and lower body sessions, respectively. Subjective measurements of RPE, RPD, and the 1-10 Likert scale were taken immediately post-exercise while the cuffs were inflated. Two-way ANOVAs were conducted on variables of interest. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in RPE between AR-BFR, NAR-BFR, and no BFR in the upper and lower body sessions (p = 0.13). There was a significant difference in RDP between upper body AR-BFR and no BFR (mean difference (MD) = 2.23 ± 0.47, p < 0.01) and upper body NAR-BFR and no BFR (mean difference (MD) = 1.32 ± 0.47, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of BFR does not appear to influence subjective ratings of exertion in the upper and lower limbs. Additionally, AR-BFR and NAR-BFR devices may cause more subjective discomfort compared to no BFR.

Medicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseVol. 56(10S)
Lehman College (US), Salisbury University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.