Freitas Eduardo D S, Miller Ryan M, Heishman Aaron D, Ferreira-Júnior João B, Araújo Joamira P, Bemben Michael G
Neuromuscular Laboratory, Department of Health and Exercise Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, United States.
Kinanthropometry and Human Performance Laboratory, Federal Institute of Sudeste of Minas Gerais, Rio Pomba, Brazil.
Front Physiol. 2020 Mar 17;11:132. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.00132. eCollection 2020.
The primary goal of this investigation was to examine the physiological responses of blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance exercise (RE) performed with continuous or intermittent BFR and to compare these results to those from conventional high- and low-load RE without BFR. Fourteen men randomly completed the following experimental trials: (1) low-load RE with continuous BFR (cBFR), (2) low-load RE with intermittent BFR (iBFR), (3) low-load RE without BFR (LI), and (4) conventional high-load RE without BFR (HI). For the cBFR, iBFR, and LI exercise trials, participants performed four sets of 30-15-15-15 repetitions of the bilateral leg press (LP) and knee extension (KE) exercises, at an intensity of 20% of their one-repetition maximum (1-RM), at a 1.5-s contraction speed, and with a 1-min rest period between sets. The only difference between the cBFR and iBFR protocols was that the pressure of the cuffs was released during the rest intervals between sets for the iBFR trial. For the HI trial, participants completed four sets of 10 repetitions of the same exercises, at 70% of 1-RM, with a 1-min rest period between sets, and at the same contraction speed. Muscle activity was assessed during each set using superficial electromyography, as well as changes in blood lactate concentration [La] from baseline at 5 min post exercise and in muscle swelling and plasma volume (%ΔPV) at 5 and 15 min post exercise. There were no significant differences in muscle activity ( < 0.05) across the cBFR, iBFR, and LI protocols at any time point, whereas they were all significantly lower than HI. There were also no significant ( < 0.05) differences across the three low-load RE conditions for [La],%ΔPV, or muscle swelling. HI elicited significantly ( < 0.05) greater responses than cBFR, iBFR, and LI for all the physiological markers measured. In conclusion, RE combined with cBFR or iBFR induce the same acute physiological responses. However, the largest physiological responses are observed with HI, probably because of the significantly greater exercise volumes. Therefore, releasing the pressure of the restrictive cuffs during the rest periods between sets will not hinder the acute physiological responses from BFR RE.
本研究的主要目的是检查在持续或间歇性血流限制（BFR）下进行的抗阻运动（RE）的生理反应，并将这些结果与无BFR的传统高负荷和低负荷RE的结果进行比较。14名男性随机完成以下实验试验：（1）持续BFR（cBFR）下的低负荷RE，（2）间歇性BFR（iBFR）下的低负荷RE，（3）无BFR的低负荷RE（LI），以及（4）无BFR的传统高负荷RE（HI）。在cBFR、iBFR和LI运动试验中，参与者以其一次重复最大值（1-RM）的20%的强度，以1.5秒的收缩速度，每组之间休息1分钟，进行四组双侧腿举（LP）和伸膝（KE）练习，每组重复30-15-15-15次。cBFR和iBFR方案之间的唯一区别是，在iBFR试验的组间休息期间，袖带压力会释放。在HI试验中，参与者以1-RM的70%的强度，每组重复10次相同的练习，每组之间休息1分钟，收缩速度相同。在每组运动期间，使用表面肌电图评估肌肉活动，以及运动后5分钟时血乳酸浓度[La]相对于基线的变化，以及运动后5分钟和15分钟时肌肉肿胀和血浆容量（%ΔPV）的变化。在任何时间点，cBFR、iBFR和LI方案之间的肌肉活动均无显著差异（<0.05），而它们均显著低于HI。在三种低负荷RE条件下，[La]、%ΔPV或肌肉肿胀也无显著（<0.05）差异。对于所有测量的生理指标，HI引起的反应均显著（<0.05）大于cBFR、iBFR和LI。总之，RE结合cBFR或iBFR会引发相同的急性生理反应。然而，HI观察到的生理反应最大可能是因为运动量显著更大。因此，在组间休息期间释放限制性袖带的压力不会阻碍BFR RE的急性生理反应。
