Lubiak Sean M, Lawson John E, Gonzalez Rojas David H, Proppe Christopher E, Rivera Paola M, Hammer Shane M, Trevino Michael A, Dinyer-McNeely Taylor K, Montgomery Tony R, Olmos Alex A, Sears Kylie N, Bergstrom Haley C, Succi Pasquale J, Keller Joshua L, Hill Ethan C
School of Kinesiology & Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Kinesiology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.
Applied Neuromuscular Physiology Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, Applied Health, and Recreation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
J Strength Cond Res. 2024 Dec 1;38(12):e727-e734. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004907. Epub 2024 Aug 14.
Lubiak, SM, Lawson, JE, Gonzalez Rojas, DH, Proppe, CE, Rivera, PM, Hammer, SM, Trevino, MA, Dinyer-McNeely, TK, Montgomery, TR, Olmos, AA, Sears, KN, Bergstrom, HC, Succi, PJ, Keller, JL, and Hill, EC. A moderate blood flow restriction pressure does not affect maximal strength or neuromuscular responses. J Strength Cond Res 38(12): e727-e734, 2024-The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) applied at 60% of total arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) on maximal strength. Eleven college-aged female subjects completed two testing sessions of maximal unilateral concentric, isometric, and eccentric leg extension muscle actions performed with and without BFR. Separate 3 (mode [isometric, concentric, eccentric]) × 2 (condition [BFR, no BFR]) × 2 (visit [2, 3]) repeated-measures analysis of variances were used to examine mean differences in maximal strength, neuromuscular function, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and pain. For maximal strength (collapsed across condition and visit), isometric (128.5 ± 22.7 Nm) and eccentric (114.5 ± 35.4 Nm) strength were greater than concentric maximal strength (89.3 ± 22.3 Nm) ( p < 0.001-0.041). Muscle excitation relative (%) to isometric non-BFR was greater during the concentric (108.6 ± 31.5%) than during the eccentric (86.7 ± 29.2%) ( p = 0.045) assessments but not different than isometric (93.4 ± 17.9%) ( p = 0.109) assessments, collapsed across condition and visit. For RPE, there was an interaction such that RPE was greater during non-BFR (4.3 ± 1.7) than during BFR (3.7 ± 1.7) ( p = 0.031) during the maximal concentric strength assessments. Furthermore, during maximal strength assessments performed with BFR, isometric RPE (5.8 ± 1.9) was greater than concentric (3.7 ± 1.7) ( p = 0.005) and eccentric (4.6 ± 1.9) ( p = 0.009) RPE. Finally, pain was greater during the isometric (2.8 ± 2.1 au) than during the concentric (1.8 ± 1.5 au) ( p = 0.016), but not eccentric, maximal strength assessments (2.1 ± 1.6 au) ( p = 0.126), collapsed across condition and visit. The application of BFR at 60% AOP did not affect concentric, isometric, or eccentric maximal strength or neuromuscular function. Trainers, clinicians, and researchers can prescribe exercise interventions relative to a restricted (when using a moderate AOP) or nonrestricted assessment of maximal strength.
卢比亚克，SM、劳森，JE、冈萨雷斯·罗哈斯，DH、普罗普，CE、里维拉，PM、哈默，SM、特雷维诺，MA、丁耶尔 - 麦克尼利，TK、蒙哥马利，TR、奥尔莫斯，AA、西尔斯，KN、伯格斯特龙，HC、苏奇，PJ、凯勒，JL和希尔，EC。中等血流限制压力不影响最大力量或神经肌肉反应。《力量与体能研究杂志》38(12): e727 - e734，2024年——本研究的目的是检验在总动脉闭塞压力（AOP）的60%施加血流限制（BFR）对最大力量的急性影响。11名大学年龄的女性受试者完成了两次测试，分别是在有和没有BFR的情况下进行最大单侧向心、等长和离心腿部伸展肌肉动作。采用单独的3（模式[等长、向心、离心]）×2（条件[BFR、无BFR]）×2（访次[2、3]）重复测量方差分析来检验最大力量、神经肌肉功能、主观用力感觉等级（RPE）和疼痛的平均差异。对于最大力量（合并条件和访次），等长力量（128.5±22.7牛米）和离心力量（114.5±35.4牛米）大于向心最大力量（89.3±22.3牛米）（p < 0.001 - 0.041）。在合并条件和访次的情况下，相对于等长无BFR时，肌肉兴奋相对百分比在向心评估期间（108.6±31.5%）大于离心评估期间（86.7±29.2%）（p = 0.045），但与等长评估期间（93.4±17.9%）无差异（p = 0.109）。对于RPE，存在交互作用，即在最大向心力量评估期间，无BFR时的RPE（4.3±1.7）大于有BFR时（3.7±1.7）（p = 0.031）。此外，在有BFR进行最大力量评估期间，等长RPE（5.8±1.9）大于向心（3.7±1.7）（p = 0.005）和离心（4.6±1.9）（p = 0.009）RPE。最后，在合并条件和访次的情况下，等长最大力量评估期间的疼痛（2.8±2.1任意单位）大于向心评估期间（1.8±1.5任意单位）（p = 0.016），但离心最大力量评估期间（2.1±1.6任意单位）无差异（p = 0.126）。在AOP的60%施加BFR不影响向心、等长或离心最大力量或神经肌肉功能。训练师、临床医生和研究人员可以根据对最大力量的受限（使用中等AOP时）或非受限评估来制定运动干预方案。
