Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent, Belgium
The Human Performance Mechanic, Lehman College, New York City, New York, USA.
Br J Sports Med. 2023 Jul;57(14):914-920. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2022-106069. Epub 2023 Jan 5.
To examine the effects of autoregulated (AUTO) and non-autoregulated (NAUTO) blood flow restriction (BFR) application on adverse effects, performance, cardiovascular and perceptual responses during resistance exercise.
Fifty-six healthy participants underwent AUTO and NAUTO BFR resistance exercise in a randomised crossover design using a training session with fixed amount of repetitions and a training session until volitional failure. Cardiovascular parameters, rate of perceived effort (RPE), rate of perceived discomfort (RPD) and number of repetitions were investigated after training, while the presence of delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) was verified 24 hours post-session. Adverse events during or following training were also monitored.
AUTO outperformed NAUTO in the failure protocol (p<0.001), while AUTO scored significantly lower for DOMS 24 hours after exercise (p<0.001). Perceptions of effort and discomfort were significantly higher in NAUTO compared with AUTO in both fixed (RPE: p=0.014, RPD: p<0.001) and failure protocol (RPE: p=0.028, RPD: p<0.001). Sixteen adverse events (7.14%) were recorded, with a sevenfold incidence in the fixed protocol for NAUTO compared with AUTO (NAUTO: n=7 vs AUTO: n=1) and five (NAUTO) vs three (AUTO) adverse events in the failure protocol. No significant differences in cardiovascular parameters were found comparing both pressure applications.
Autoregulation appears to enhance safety and performance in both fixed and failure BFR-training protocols. AUTO BFR training did not seem to affect cardiovascular stress differently, but was associated with lower DOMS, perceived effort and discomfort compared with NAUTO.
NCT04996680.
研究自动调节(AUTO)和非自动调节(NAUTO)血流限制(BFR)应用对阻力训练中不良反应、表现、心血管和感知反应的影响。
56 名健康参与者采用固定重复次数的训练和自愿失败的训练方案,以随机交叉设计接受 AUTO 和 NAUTO BFR 阻力训练。在训练后检查心血管参数、用力感知(RPE)、不适感知(RPD)和重复次数,同时在训练后 24 小时验证迟发性肌肉酸痛(DOMS)的存在。还监测了训练过程中或之后的不良反应事件。
在失败方案中,AUTO 优于 NAUTO(p<0.001),而 AUTO 在运动后 24 小时的 DOMS 评分明显较低(p<0.001)。在固定方案(RPE:p=0.014,RPD:p<0.001)和失败方案(RPE:p=0.028,RPD:p<0.001)中,NAUTO 的用力和不适感知明显高于 AUTO。记录了 16 个不良反应事件(7.14%),NAUTO 在固定方案中的发生率是 AUTO 的七倍(NAUTO:n=7 vs AUTO:n=1),失败方案中分别有 5 个(NAUTO)和 3 个(AUTO)不良反应事件。比较两种压力应用时,心血管参数没有显著差异。
在固定和失败的 BFR 训练方案中,自动调节似乎都能提高安全性和表现。与 NAUTO 相比,AUTO BFR 训练似乎不会对心血管压力产生不同影响,但与较低的 DOMS、用力感知和不适感知相关。
NCT04996680。