Strength Training Study and Research Group, Paulista University, UNIP, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
School of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
J Strength Cond Res. 2022 Sep 1;36(9):2410-2416. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003879. Epub 2020 Dec 9.
Teixeira, EL, Painelli, VdS, Schoenfeld, BJ, Silva-Batista, C, Longo, AR, Aihara, AY, Cardoso, FN, Peres, BdA, and Tricoli, V. Perceptual and neuromuscular responses adapt similarly between high-load resistance training and low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction. J Strength Cond Res 36(9): 2410-2416, 2022-This study compared the effects of 8 weeks of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) and high-load resistance training (HL-RT) on perceptual responses (rating of perceived exertion [RPE] and pain), quadriceps cross-sectional area (QCSA), and muscle strength (1 repetition maximum [RM]). Sixteen physically active men trained twice per week, for 8 weeks. One leg performed LL-BFR (3 sets of 15 repetitions, 20% 1RM), whereas the contralateral leg performed HL-RT (3 sets of 8 repetitions, 70% 1RM). Rating of perceived exertion and pain were evaluated immediately after the first and last training sessions, whereas QCSA and 1RM were assessed at baseline and after training. Rating of perceived exertion was significantly lower (6.8 ± 1.1 vs. 8.1 ± 0.8, p = 0.001) and pain significantly higher (7.1 ± 1.2 vs. 5.8 ± 1.8, p = 0.02) for LL-BFR than that for HL-RT before training. Significant reductions in RPE and pain were shown for both protocols after training (both p < 0.0001), although no between-protocol differences were shown in absolute changes ( p = 0.10 and p = 0.48, respectively). Both LL-BFR and HL-RT were similarly effective in increasing QCSA (7.0 ± 3.8% and 6.3 ± 4.1%, respectively; both p < 0.0001) and 1RM (6.9 ± 4.1% and 13.7 ± 5.9%, respectively; both P < 0.0001), although absolute changes for 1RM in HL-RT were greater than LL-BFR ( p = 0.001). In conclusion, LL-BFR produces lower RPE values and a higher pain perception than HL-RT. However, consistent application of these approaches result in chronic adaptations so that there are no differences in perceptual responses over the course of time. In addition, muscle strength is optimized with HL-RT despite similar increases in muscle hypertrophy between conditions.
特谢拉，EL，佩内利，VdS，舍恩菲尔德，BJ，席尔瓦-巴蒂斯塔，C，隆戈，AR，相泽，AY，卡多佐，FN，佩雷斯，BdA，和特里科利，V。在血流限制的低负荷阻力训练和高负荷阻力训练之间，感知和神经肌肉反应适应性相似。J 力量与调节研究 36(9)：2410-2416，2022 年-本研究比较了 8 周低负荷血流限制阻力训练（LL-BFR）和高负荷阻力训练（HL-RT）对感知反应（主观用力感觉[RPE]和疼痛）、股四头肌横截面积（QCSA）和肌肉力量（1 次重复最大值[RM]）的影响。16 名有运动能力的男性每周训练两次，持续 8 周。一条腿进行 LL-BFR（3 组 15 次重复，20%1RM），而对侧腿进行 HL-RT（3 组 8 次重复，70%1RM）。在第一次和最后一次训练后立即评估 RPE 和疼痛，而在基线和训练后评估 QCSA 和 1RM。在训练前，LL-BFR 的 RPE 明显较低（6.8±1.1 比 8.1±0.8，p=0.001），疼痛明显较高（7.1±1.2 比 5.8±1.8，p=0.02）。两种方案在训练后 RPE 和疼痛均显著降低（均 p<0.0001），但绝对变化无差异（p=0.10 和 p=0.48）。LL-BFR 和 HL-RT 均能有效增加 QCSA（分别为 7.0±3.8%和 6.3±4.1%；均 p<0.0001）和 1RM（分别为 6.9±4.1%和 13.7±5.9%；均 p<0.0001），但 HL-RT 中 1RM 的绝对变化大于 LL-BFR（p=0.001）。总之，LL-BFR 产生的 RPE 值较低，疼痛感知较高，而 HL-RT 则相反。然而，这两种方法的持续应用导致了慢性适应，因此在整个过程中，感知反应没有差异。此外，尽管在肌肉肥大方面存在相似的增加，但 HL-RT 仍能优化肌肉力量。
