Early Kate S, Rockhill Mallory, Bryan Alicia, Tyo Brian, Buuck David, McGinty Josh
Department of Kinesiology and Health Sciences, Columbus State University, Columbus, GA, USA.
Southern Rehab and Sports Medicine, Columbus, GA, USA.
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2020 Dec;15(6):892-900. doi: 10.26603/ijspt20200892.
Blood flow restriction (BFR) training enhances muscular strength and hypertrophy in several populations including older adults and injured athletes. However, the efficacy of emerging BFR technologies on muscular adaptations, vascular health, and pain is unclear.
The purpose of this study was to examine muscular performance, pain and vascular function in response to eight weeks of BFR compared to traditional resistance training and a control group.
Randomized control trial.
Thirty-one overtly healthy participants (age: 23 ± 4y, 65% female) underwent eight weeks of supervised high load resistance training (RES), low load resistance training with BFR (BFR) or no training (control, CON). RES and BFR (with pneumatic bands) performed seven upper and lower body exercises, two to three sessions per week at 60% and 30% of one-repetition maximum (1RM), respectively. Twenty-four hours post-exercise, general muscle soreness was assessed via a visual analog scale (VAS) and present pain intensity (PPI) of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. At baseline and after eight weeks, participants underwent one-repetition maximum (1RM), and flow-mediated dilation (FMD) testing.
At baseline all groups exhibited similar muscle strength and endurance and vascular function. At the end of training, RES and BFR groups significantly increased muscle strength (1RM) to a similar magnitude as compared to the CON group ( < 0.0001), but did not alter body composition. FMD significantly increased in RES and BFR groups compared to CON group ( = 0.006). VAS and PPI were similar between RES and BFR groups throughout the exercise sessions until VAS decreased in the BFR group after the last session compared to the RES group ( = 0.02).
Compared to RES, BFR resulted in similar muscular performance (strength and endurance) and vascular improvements at a lower exercise intensity, suggesting BFR is an effective alternative to high load resistance training. Further longitudinal studies may gain greater understanding regarding general muscle pain and soreness when using BFR.
Therapy, Level 2.
血流限制(BFR)训练可增强包括老年人和受伤运动员在内的多类人群的肌肉力量和肥大。然而,新兴的BFR技术对肌肉适应、血管健康和疼痛的功效尚不清楚。
本研究的目的是比较八周BFR训练与传统阻力训练及对照组对肌肉性能、疼痛和血管功能的影响。
随机对照试验。
31名明显健康的参与者(年龄:23±4岁,65%为女性)接受了为期八周的监督下的高负荷阻力训练(RES)、带BFR的低负荷阻力训练(BFR)或无训练(对照组,CON)。RES组和BFR组(使用气动带)分别进行七项上下肢练习,每周两到三次,强度分别为一次重复最大值(1RM)的60%和30%。运动后24小时,通过视觉模拟量表(VAS)和麦吉尔疼痛问卷的当前疼痛强度(PPI)评估一般肌肉酸痛情况。在基线和八周后,参与者进行一次重复最大值(1RM)测试和血流介导的血管舒张(FMD)测试。
在基线时,所有组的肌肉力量、耐力和血管功能相似。训练结束时,RES组和BFR组的肌肉力量(1RM)与CON组相比显著增加至相似程度(<0.0001),但未改变身体成分。与CON组相比,RES组和BFR组的FMD显著增加(=0.006)。在整个训练过程中,RES组和BFR组的VAS和PPI相似,直到最后一次训练后,BFR组的VAS与RES组相比下降(=0.02)。
与RES相比,BFR在较低运动强度下产生了相似的肌肉性能(力量和耐力)和血管改善,表明BFR是高负荷阻力训练的有效替代方法。进一步的纵向研究可能会更深入了解使用BFR时的一般肌肉疼痛和酸痛情况。
治疗,2级。