Jagim Andrew R, Schuler Jordan, Szymanski Elijah, Khurelbaatar Chinguun, Carpenter Makenna, Fields Jennifer B, Jones Margaret T
Sports Medicine, Mayo Clinic Health System, Onalaska, WI 54650, USA.
Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA.
J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2024 Dec 4;9(4):254. doi: 10.3390/jfmk9040254.
Blood flow restriction (BFR) is a popular resistance exercise technique purported to increase metabolic stress and augment training adaptations over time. However, short-term use may lead to acute neuromuscular fatigue and higher exertion ratings. The purpose of the current study was to examine acute physiological responses to low-load resistance exercise utilizing BFR compared to higher-load, non-BFR resistance exercise. Recreationally trained males (n = 6) and females (n = 7) (mean ± standard deviation, age: 20 ± 1 yrs.; height: 172 ± 8 cm; weight: 73 ± 11 kg; BMI: 24.4 ± 2.2 kg·m; training experience: 4 ± 2 yrs.) had limb occlusion pressure determined (50%; right leg: 118 ± 11 mmHg; left leg: 121 ± 13 mmHg) using an automated, self-inflating cuff system during baseline testing. In subsequent sessions, using a randomized, cross-over design, participants completed one of two experimental conditions: (1) Low-load + BFR and (2) High load + non-BFR. In both conditions, participants completed one set of back squats at either 30% (BFR) or 60% (non-BFR) of an estimated 1RM for a max of 30 repetitions, followed by three additional sets with the same loads and a target of 15 repetitions per set. Blood lactate and countermovement jump (CMJ) height were measured pre- and post-back squat. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were assessed following each set. When collapsed across all sets, participants completed significantly more total repetitions in the BFR condition compared to non-BFR (75.0 ± 0.0 vs. 68.23 ± 9.27 reps; = 0.015; ES: 1.03), but a lower training load volume (2380 ± 728 vs. 4756 ± 1538 kg; < 0.001; ES: 1.97). There was a significant time-by-condition interaction ( < 0.001), with a greater increase in blood lactate occurring from baseline to post-back squat in the non-BFR condition (11.61 mmol/L, 95%CI: 9.93, 13.28 mmol/L) compared to BFR (5.98 mmol/L, 95%CI: 4.30, 7.65 mmol/L). There was another significant time-by-condition interaction ( = 0.043), with a greater reduction in CMJ occurring in the non-BFR condition (-6.01, 95%CI: -9.14, -2.88 cm; < 0.001) compared to BFR (-1.50, 95%CI: -1.50, 4.51 cm; = 0.312). Utilizing a low-load BFR protocol may allow for a higher training volume, yet lower metabolic stress and reduce neuromuscular fatigue compared to lifting at a higher load without the use of BFR.
血流限制（BFR）是一种广受欢迎的抗阻训练技术，据称随着时间推移，它能增加代谢压力并增强训练适应性。然而，短期使用可能会导致急性神经肌肉疲劳和更高的用力程度评级。本研究的目的是研究与高负荷、非BFR抗阻训练相比，利用BFR进行低负荷抗阻训练的急性生理反应。接受过休闲训练的男性（n = 6）和女性（n = 7）（平均值±标准差，年龄：20±1岁；身高：172±8厘米；体重：73±11千克；体重指数：24.4±2.2千克·米²；训练经验：4±2年）在基线测试期间使用自动充气袖带系统测定肢体闭塞压力（50%；右腿：118±11毫米汞柱；左腿：121±13毫米汞柱）。在随后的训练中，采用随机交叉设计，参与者完成以下两种实验条件之一：（1）低负荷+BFR和（2）高负荷+非BFR。在两种条件下，参与者均以估计的1RM的30%（BFR）或60%（非BFR）完成一组后深蹲，最多30次重复，随后再进行三组相同负荷的训练，每组目标为15次重复。在深蹲前后测量血乳酸和反向移动跳跃（CMJ）高度。每组训练后评估主观用力程度（RPE）评级。当汇总所有组时，与非BFR组相比，参与者在BFR条件下完成的总重复次数显著更多（75.0±0.0次对68.23±9.27次；P = 0.015；效应量：1.03），但训练负荷量更低（2380±728千克对4756±1538千克；P < 0.001；效应量：1.97）。存在显著的时间×条件交互作用（P < 0.001），与BFR组（5.98毫摩尔/升，95%置信区间：4.30，7.65毫摩尔/升）相比，非BFR组从基线到深蹲后血乳酸增加幅度更大（11.61毫摩尔/升，95%置信区间：9.93，13.28毫摩尔/升）。还存在另一个显著的时间×条件交互作用（P = 0.043），与BFR组（-1.50厘米，95%置信区间：-1.50，4.51厘米；P = 0.312）相比，非BFR组CMJ下降幅度更大（-6.01厘米，95%置信区间：-9.14，-2.88厘米；P < 0.001）。与不使用BFR进行高负荷训练相比，采用低负荷BFR方案可能允许更高的训练量，但代谢压力更低，并减少神经肌肉疲劳。
