Laurentino Gilberto Candido, Loenneke Jeremy Paul, Teixeira Emerson Luiz, Nakajima Eliza, Iared Wagner, Tricoli Valmor
1School of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo, SP, BRAZIL; 2Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS; and 3America's Diagnostics S/A, São Paulo, SP, BRAZIL.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016 May;48(5):920-5. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000833.
Blood flow restriction in combination with low-load resistance training has been shown to increase muscle size and strength; however, the influence of cuff width on these adaptations is unknown.
The objective of this study is to determine the influence of different cuff widths on muscle size and strength, and also investigate whether a wider cuff would result in less adaptation compared with a narrow cuff when inflated to the same relative pressure (80% arterial occlusion pressure).
Eleven physically active males had their arms randomly divided into two separate conditions: low-load blood flow restriction exercise with a narrow cuff (BFR + N, 5 cm) and low-load blood flow restriction exercise with a wide cuff (BFR + W, 10 cm). All participants underwent 12 wk of unilateral elbow flexion at 20% of their one-repetition maximum (1RM). The elbow flexion strength (1RM), elbow flexor muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), arterial blood flow, training volume, RPE, and rating of perceived pain were assessed before and after training.
Elbow flexion 1RM and CSA significantly increased in both conditions (BFR + N = 13.5% and 9% vs BFR + W = 11.9% and 11.2%, respectively). The arterial blood flow was significantly reduced when 80% of the arterial occlusion pressure was applied in both conditions (BFR + N = 61.2% and BFR + W = 63.5%). There were no significant differences in the training volume, RPE, or rating of perceived pain between conditions (P > 0.05).
We wish to suggest that, regardless of cuff width, both protocols produced similar increases in 1RM and elbow flexor muscle CSA, and these responses may be related to the similar training volume and/or similar reductions in arterial blood flow produced when both cuffs were inflated to the same relative pressure.
有研究表明，血流限制与低负荷抗阻训练相结合可增加肌肉尺寸和力量；然而，袖带宽度对这些适应性变化的影响尚不清楚。
本研究的目的是确定不同袖带宽度对肌肉尺寸和力量的影响，并研究在相同相对压力（80%动脉闭塞压力）下充气时，较宽的袖带与较窄的袖带相比，是否会导致适应性变化更小。
11名身体活跃的男性将其手臂随机分为两种不同情况：使用窄袖带进行低负荷血流限制运动（BFR+N，5厘米）和使用宽袖带进行低负荷血流限制运动（BFR+W，10厘米）。所有参与者以其一次重复最大值（1RM）的20%进行12周的单侧肘部屈曲训练。在训练前后评估肘部屈曲力量（1RM）、肘部屈肌肌肉横截面积（CSA）、动脉血流量、训练量、主观用力程度（RPE）和疼痛感知评分。
两种情况下肘部屈曲1RM和CSA均显著增加（BFR+N分别为13.5%和9%，BFR+W分别为11.9%和11.2%）。在两种情况下施加80%动脉闭塞压力时，动脉血流量均显著减少（BFR+N为61.2%，BFR+W为63.5%）。两种情况之间的训练量、RPE或疼痛感知评分无显著差异（P>0.05）。
我们认为，无论袖带宽度如何，两种方案在1RM和肘部屈肌肌肉CSA方面产生的增加相似，这些反应可能与两种袖带在相同相对压力下充气时产生的相似训练量和/或相似的动脉血流量减少有关。
