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。