Low-load blood flow restriction elicits greater concentric strength than non-blood flow restriction resistance training but similar isometric strength and muscle size

Ethan C. Hill, Terry J. Housh, Joshua L. Keller, Cory M. Smith, John V. Anders, Richard J. Schmidt, Glen O. Johnson, Joel T. Cramer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Low-load venous blood flow restriction resistance training (RT + BFR) has been demonstrated to increase muscle strength to a greater degree than low-load non-BFR resistance training (RT) during isotonic training, but no previous investigations have examined RT + BFR versus RT during isokinetic training. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of 4 weeks of isokinetic low-load RT + BFR versus low-load RT on indices of muscle strength, muscle size, and neural adaptations. Methods: Thirty women (mean ± SD; 22 ± 2 years) participated in this investigation and were randomly assigned to 4 weeks of either RT + BFR (n = 10), RT (n = 10), or control (n = 10) group. Resistance training consisted of 75 reciprocal forearm flexion–extension isokinetic muscle actions of the forearm flexors performed at a velocity of 120°s−1. Results: Concentric peak torque increased to a greater extent for RT + BFR after 4 weeks (36.9%) compared to RT (25.8%), but there were similar increases in isometric torque (23.3–42.1%). For both RT + BFR and RT, there were similar increases in muscle cross-sectional area and muscle thickness of the biceps brachii after 2 weeks (11.3–14.3% and 12.4–12.9%, respectively) and 4 weeks (18.7–21.9% and 19.0–20.0%, respectively). There were similar increases in mechanomyographic amplitude, mechanomyographic mean power frequency, and electromyographic mean power frequency, but no changes in electromyographic amplitude for all conditions (including control). Conclusions: These findings indicated that low-load RT + BFR elicited greater increases in concentric strength than low-load RT, but elicited comparable increases in isometric strength and muscle size. There were also no differences in any of the EMG and MMG responses among conditions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)425-441
Number of pages17
JournalEuropean Journal of Applied Physiology
Volume120
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2020

Keywords

  • Blood flow
  • Low intensity
  • Low load
  • Occlusion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Physiology (medical)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Low-load blood flow restriction elicits greater concentric strength than non-blood flow restriction resistance training but similar isometric strength and muscle size'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this