Perceptual responses: Clinical versus practical blood flow restriction resistance exercise

Ryan M Miller; Bianca A R Galletti; Karolina J Koziol; Eduardo D S Freitas; Aaron D Heishman; Christopher D Black; Daniel J Larson; Debra A Bemben; Michael G Bemben

doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.113137

Perceptual responses: Clinical versus practical blood flow restriction resistance exercise

Physiol Behav. 2020 Dec 1:227:113137. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.113137. Epub 2020 Aug 14.

Authors

Ryan M Miller¹, Bianca A R Galletti², Karolina J Koziol², Eduardo D S Freitas², Aaron D Heishman³, Christopher D Black⁴, Daniel J Larson⁵, Debra A Bemben⁶, Michael G Bemben²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Health and Exercise Science, Neuromuscular Research Laboratory, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA. Electronic address: ryanmiller1@ou.edu.
² Department of Health and Exercise Science, Neuromuscular Research Laboratory, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.
³ Department of Health and Exercise Science, Neuromuscular Research Laboratory, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA; Department of Athletics, Basketball Strength and Performance, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.
⁴ Department of Health and Exercise Science, Sensory and Muscle Function Research Laboratory, University of Oklahoma, USA.
⁵ Departmeny of Health and Exercise Science, Sport, Health, and Exercise Data Analytics Laboratory, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.
⁶ Departmeny of Health and Exercise Science, Bone Density Research Laboratory, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.

PMID: 32798570
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.113137

Abstract

The purpose of the current investigation was to compare the acute perceptual responses during low-load resistance exercise (RE) with clinical blood flow restriction (cBFR-RE) and practical blood flow restriction (pBFR-RE), and during conventional low- (LL-RE) and high-load resistance exercise (HL-RE), to determine if these responses differed between young males and females. Twenty-nine participants (14 males: 23.6±2.7years, 25.3±3.1kg/m² and 15 females: 20.3±1.6years, 23.4±1.9kg/m²) completed the following exercise conditions in a randomized design: 1) cBFR-RE, 2) pBFR-RE, 3) HL-RE, and 4) LL-RE. Low-load conditions consisted of 30-15-15-15 repetitions of two-leg press (LP) and knee extension (KE) exercises with 30% one-repetition maximum (1-RM), and HL-RE consisted of 3 sets of 10 repetitions at 80% 1-RM, all with 60s rest intervals. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and discomfort were assessed before exercise and immediately following each set. RPE was significantly higher in HL-RE compared to all low-load conditions for both exercises after each set (all p<0.05). cBFR-RE resulted in significantly greater RPE than pBFR-RE and LL-RE for both exercises for sets 1-4 for LP and sets 2-3 for KE (all p<0.05). Levels of discomfort were similar between cBFR-RE and HL-RE, which tended to be significantly higher than pBFR-RE and LL-RE (p<0.05). Men reported significantly greater RPE than women following sets 2-4 during KE with cBFR-RE and sets 2 and 3 during KE for HL-RE (all p<0.05). Males also reported significantly greater discomfort than women following sets 2-4 for KE LL-RE (p<0.05). Altogether, these data suggest that pBFR-RE may provide a more favorable BFR condition based on perceptual responses and that perceptual responses may differ between sexes across varying resistance exercise conditions.

Keywords: Discomfort; Kaatsu; Pain; Perceived exertion; RPE; Sex differences.

MeSH terms

Exercise
Female
Hemodynamics
Humans
Male
Muscle, Skeletal
Physical Exertion
Regional Blood Flow
Resistance Training*