Sánchez-Valdepeñas Juan, Cornejo-Daza Pedro J, Páez-Maldonado José, Rodiles-Guerrero Luis, Cano-Castillo Clara, Piqueras-Sanchiz Francisco, González-Badillo Juan José, Sáez de Villarreal Eduardo, Pareja-Blanco Fernando
Science-Based Training Research Group, Department of Sports and Computer Sciences, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain.
Physical Performance & Sports Research Center, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2024 Dec 5;20(1):80-90. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2024-0236. Print 2025 Jan 1.
To compare the acute effects on mechanical, metabolic, neuromuscular, and muscle contractile responses to different velocity-loss (VL) thresholds (20% and 40%) under distinct blood-flow conditions (free [FF] vs restricted [BFR]) in full squat (SQ).
Twenty strength-trained men performed 4 SQ protocols with 60% 1-repetition maximum that differed in the VL within the set and in the blood-flow condition (FF20: FF with 20% VL; FF40: FF with 40% VL; BFR20: BFR with 20% VL; and BFR40: BFR with 40% VL). The level of BFR was 50% of the arterial occlusion pressure. Before and after the SQ protocols, the following tests were performed: (1) tensiomyography, (2) blood lactate, (3) countermovement jump, (4) maximal voluntary isometric SQ contraction, and (5) performance with the load that elicited a 1 m·s-1 at baseline measurements in SQ.
No "BFR × VL" interactions were observed. BFR protocols resulted in fewer repetitions and lower increases in lactate concentration than FF protocols. The 40% VL protocols completed more repetitions but resulted in lower mechanical performance and electromyography median frequency during the exercise than the 20% VL protocols. At postexercise, the 40% VL protocols also experienced greater blood lactate concentrations, higher alterations in tensiomyography-derived variables, and accentuated impairments in SQ and countermovement-jump performances. The 20% VL protocols showed an increased electromyography median frequency at postexercise maximal voluntary isometric contraction.
Despite BFR-accelerated fatigue development during exercise, a given VL magnitude induced similar impairments in the distinct performance indicators assessed, regardless of the blood-flow condition.
比较在全蹲(SQ)动作中,不同血流条件(自由血流[FF]与限制血流[BFR])下,不同速度损失(VL)阈值(20%和40%)对机械、代谢、神经肌肉和肌肉收缩反应的急性影响。
20名经过力量训练的男性进行4种全蹲方案,负荷为1次重复最大值的60%,每组的速度损失和血流条件不同(FF20:自由血流且速度损失20%;FF40:自由血流且速度损失40%;BFR20:限制血流且速度损失20%;BFR40:限制血流且速度损失40%)。限制血流的水平为动脉闭塞压的50%。在全蹲方案前后,进行以下测试:(1)张力肌电图;(2)血乳酸;(3)反向纵跳;(4)最大自主等长全蹲收缩;(5)在全蹲基线测量时产生1米·秒⁻¹速度的负荷下的表现。
未观察到“BFR×VL”交互作用。与自由血流方案相比,限制血流方案导致重复次数减少,乳酸浓度升高幅度降低。40%速度损失方案完成的重复次数更多,但与20%速度损失方案相比,运动期间的机械性能和肌电图中位频率更低。运动后,40%速度损失方案也出现更高的血乳酸浓度、张力肌电图衍生变量的更大变化,以及全蹲和反向纵跳表现的更明显损伤。20%速度损失方案在运动后最大自主等长收缩时肌电图中位频率增加。
尽管运动期间限制血流会加速疲劳发展,但无论血流条件如何,给定的速度损失幅度在评估的不同性能指标中都会导致类似的损伤。