USF Muscle Laboratory, Exercise Science Program, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States of America.
Physiol Meas. 2024 Jun 18;45(6). doi: 10.1088/1361-6579/ad548c.
. To compare the acute physiological and perceptual responses to blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise using a traditional research device or novel, automated system.. Forty-four resistance trained individuals performed four sets of unilateral elbow flexion exercise (30% one-repetition maximum) to volitional failure using two distinct restrictive devices [SmartCuffs PRO BFR Model (SMARTCUFF), Hokanson E20 Rapid Inflation device (HOKANSON)] and with two levels of BFR [40% limb occlusion pressure (LOP), 80% LOP]. Blood pressure (BP), muscle thickness (MT), and isometric strength (ISO) were assessed prior to and following exercise. Perceptual responses [ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), discomfort] were assessed prior to exercise and following each exercise set.. Data are displayed as means (SD). Immediately following exercise with 40% LOP, there were no statistical differences between devices for BP, MT, and ISO. However, only following Set 1 of exercise, RPE was greater with SMARTCUFF compared to HOKANSON (< 0.05). In addition, only following Set 2 of exercise, discomfort was greater with HOKANSON compared to SMARTCUFF (< 0.001). Immediately following exercise with 80% LOP, there were no statistical differences between devices for BP, MT, and ISO. However, only following Set 4 of exercise, RPE was greater with HOKANSON compared to SMARTCUFF (< 0.05). In addition, following all exercise sets, discomfort was greater with HOKANSON compared to SMARTCUFF (< 0.001). For repetitions completed with 40% LOP there were no statistical differences between SMARTCUFF and HOKANSON across any exercise sets. For repetitions completed with 80% LOP there were no statistical differences between SMARTCUFF and HOKANSON across Set 1 of exercise (= 0.34), however, for Sets 2-4 of exercise, significantly greater number of repetitions were completed during SMARTCUFF than HOKANSON.. The present study provides valuable insight into the efficacy of a novel, automated BFR system (SMARTCUFF) eliciting comparable acute physiological responses to BFR exercise and in some cases favorable perceptual responses when compared to a traditional research device (HOKANSON).
. 比较使用传统研究设备或新型自动化系统进行血流限制（BFR）运动的急性生理和感知反应。. 44 名阻力训练个体使用两种不同的限制装置[SmartCuffs PRO BFR 模型（SMARTCUFF），Hokanson E20 快速充气装置（HOKANSON）]进行四组单侧肘屈肌运动（30%一次重复最大值），直至达到自愿失败，并且 BFR 水平分别为[肢体闭塞压力（LOP）的 40%，80%]。在运动前和运动后评估血压（BP）、肌肉厚度（MT）和等长强度（ISO）。在运动前和每次运动后评估感知反应[感觉用力等级（RPE），不适]。. 数据显示为平均值（SD）。在 40%LOP 限制后，BP、MT 和 ISO 方面，两种设备之间没有统计学差异。然而，只有在第 1 组运动后，SMARTCUFF 的 RPE 高于 HOKANSON（<0.05）。此外，只有在第 2 组运动后，与 SMARTCUFF 相比，HOKANSON 的不适程度更大（<0.001）。在 80%LOP 限制后，BP、MT 和 ISO 方面，两种设备之间没有统计学差异。然而，只有在第 4 组运动后，HOKANSON 的 RPE 高于 SMARTCUFF（<0.05）。此外，在所有运动后，HOKANSON 的不适程度均高于 SMARTCUFF（<0.001）。在 40%LOP 限制下完成的重复次数，在任何运动组中，SMARTCUFF 和 HOKANSON 之间均无统计学差异。在 80%LOP 限制下完成的重复次数，在第 1 组运动中，SMARTCUFF 和 HOKANSON 之间没有统计学差异（=0.34），然而，在第 2-4 组运动中，在 SMARTCUFF 上完成的重复次数明显多于 HOKANSON。. 本研究提供了有价值的见解，即新型自动化 BFR 系统（SMARTCUFF）在引发与 BFR 运动相当的急性生理反应方面具有功效，在某些情况下，与传统研究设备（HOKANSON）相比，感知反应更有利。
