Mr Michael Beere, Dr Isaac Selva Raj, P. J. Peiffer, Professor Keith Hill, Dr Peter Edwards, Dr Belinda Brown, A. P. B. Scott
{"title":"WALKING WITH BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION: A NOVEL METHOD TO IMPROVE PHYSICAL FITNESS IN OLDER ADULTS?","authors":"Mr Michael Beere, Dr Isaac Selva Raj, P. J. Peiffer, Professor Keith Hill, Dr Peter Edwards, Dr Belinda Brown, A. P. B. Scott","doi":"10.31189/2165-7629-13-s2.439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Alternative physical activity modalities and methods are needed to combat low adherence among older populations. Therefore, we are investigating whether blood flow restricted (BFR) walking improves measures of lower limb strength, and functional performance, compared to traditional walking in older adults.\n \n \n \n Healthy adults ≥60 years were randomised into BFR (n=5) or non-BFR (n=4) walking groups. Both groups walked outdoors, 3 days/week for 12 weeks starting at 4km/h and increasing walking speed by 0.5km/h every 4 weeks. The BFR group walked for 25min with BFR applied (60% arterial occlusion pressure) to the lower limbs in 2x 10mins bouts (separated by 5mins walking without occlusion). The non-BFR group walked for 50mins without occlusion, matching current best practice for low-moderate intensity physical activity. Participants were assessed at baseline and post-intervention (12 weeks) for knee extension maximal voluntary torque (MVTpeak) and functional capacity (four square step test [4SST], 5x sit-to-stand [STS], timed up and go [TUG], gait speed, and 6-minute walk test [6mWT]).\n \n \n \n There were no differences at baseline between groups (p>0.05). Both groups improved across all measures from baseline to post-intervention, with significant effects for time observed for: 4SST (7.92±1.2s – 6.83±1.39s; p=0.035), TUG (6.16±0.81s – 5.58±0.9s; p=0.04), STS (11.30±1.70s – 10.14±1.7s; p=0.032), but not for gait speed (3.98±0.69s – 3.71±0.69s; p=0.456), 6mWT (564.72±72.13m – 601.27±64.2m; p=0.129) and MVTpeak (112.33±25.8Nm – 120.55±23.5Nm; p=0.995). No group x time effect was observed from baseline to 12 weeks (p>0.05).\n \n \n \n The current results demonstrate significant improvements in functional measures (4SST, TUG, STS) from baseline to post-intervention, with no differences observed between groups. This indicates that low-intensity BFR walking may provide comparable physical fitness improvements to non-BFR walking while completing only 50% of the volume.\n","PeriodicalId":92070,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical exercise physiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical exercise physiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31189/2165-7629-13-s2.439","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Alternative physical activity modalities and methods are needed to combat low adherence among older populations. Therefore, we are investigating whether blood flow restricted (BFR) walking improves measures of lower limb strength, and functional performance, compared to traditional walking in older adults.
Healthy adults ≥60 years were randomised into BFR (n=5) or non-BFR (n=4) walking groups. Both groups walked outdoors, 3 days/week for 12 weeks starting at 4km/h and increasing walking speed by 0.5km/h every 4 weeks. The BFR group walked for 25min with BFR applied (60% arterial occlusion pressure) to the lower limbs in 2x 10mins bouts (separated by 5mins walking without occlusion). The non-BFR group walked for 50mins without occlusion, matching current best practice for low-moderate intensity physical activity. Participants were assessed at baseline and post-intervention (12 weeks) for knee extension maximal voluntary torque (MVTpeak) and functional capacity (four square step test [4SST], 5x sit-to-stand [STS], timed up and go [TUG], gait speed, and 6-minute walk test [6mWT]).
There were no differences at baseline between groups (p>0.05). Both groups improved across all measures from baseline to post-intervention, with significant effects for time observed for: 4SST (7.92±1.2s – 6.83±1.39s; p=0.035), TUG (6.16±0.81s – 5.58±0.9s; p=0.04), STS (11.30±1.70s – 10.14±1.7s; p=0.032), but not for gait speed (3.98±0.69s – 3.71±0.69s; p=0.456), 6mWT (564.72±72.13m – 601.27±64.2m; p=0.129) and MVTpeak (112.33±25.8Nm – 120.55±23.5Nm; p=0.995). No group x time effect was observed from baseline to 12 weeks (p>0.05).
The current results demonstrate significant improvements in functional measures (4SST, TUG, STS) from baseline to post-intervention, with no differences observed between groups. This indicates that low-intensity BFR walking may provide comparable physical fitness improvements to non-BFR walking while completing only 50% of the volume.