Comparing the Effects of Pneumatic Compression and Blood Flow Restriction on Muscle Recovery

Eccentric muscle contractions are often associated with exercise induced muscle damage (EIMD). EIMD can result in decreased force output, increased stiffness, and a loss in muscle function leading to decreased performance. Two of the many proposed treatments of EIMD are intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) and blood flow restriction (BFR). BFR relies on occlusion and reintroduction of blood. IPC acts as an air-pressure massage, acting on a specific part of the limb, releasing, and re-inflating up the limb. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether BFR or pneumatic compression could minimize the effect of EIMD on muscle function, as measured by countermovement jump (CMJ) height, following a single bout of downhill running. METHODS: 21 (F = 11) young recreationally active volunteers were randomized into one of three groups: control (no intervention), IPC, and BFR. IPC consisted of 20-minutes of Therabody Recovery Air (Therabody Inc.; Los Angeles, CA) treatment at 100 mmHg. BFR consisted of 4 sets of 3-minutes at 100% occlusion, followed by a 2-minute break at 0% occlusion using the Delphi BFR device (Delphi Medical Innovations Inc.; Vancouver, BC). Participants completed 20 minutes of downhill running at a -12% grade at a speed of 9.65 km/hr (6.00 mph). Participants refrained from exercise 24-hours prior to following exercise. CMJ height was collected using VALD Forcedecks (VALD, Australia) pre-exercise, immediately post-exercise, immediately post-treatment, and 24-hours post-exercise. Data is presented as change (post-pre), and are shown as mean ± SD. This was an interim statistical analysis. A One-way ANOVA was conducted to assess differences between groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between change in CMJ height between groups regarding change from pre- to post-exercise (IPC ∆ = -1.83 ± 1.69 cm ; BFR ∆ = -0.16 ± 1.42 cm ; CON ∆ = 0.10 cm ± 3.088; p = 0.295); pre- to post-treatment (IPC ∆ = = -2.1 ± 2.26 cm; BFR ∆ = -1.42 ± 1.495 cm; CON ∆ = -1.33 ± 2.16 cm; p = 0.769) or pre- to 24hr post-exercise (IPC ∆ = -1.5 ± 1.54 cm; BFR ∆ = -0.94 ± 2.19 cm; CON ∆ = -0.82 ± 1.75 cm; p = 0.766). CONCLUSION: There is no indication that BFR or IPC may be more effective at modulating the effects of EIMD on muscle function as compared to control.