Differential training benefits and motor unit remodeling in wrist force precision tasks following high and low load blood flow restriction exercises under volume-matched conditions.
{"title":"Differential training benefits and motor unit remodeling in wrist force precision tasks following high and low load blood flow restriction exercises under volume-matched conditions.","authors":"Yen-Ting Lin, Chun-Man Wong, Yi-Ching Chen, Yueh Chen, Ing-Shiou Hwang","doi":"10.1186/s12984-024-01419-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance training has demonstrated efficacy in promoting strength gains beneficial for rehabilitation. Yet, the distinct functional advantages of BFR strength training using high-load and low-load protocols remain unclear. This study explored the behavioral and neurophysiological mechanisms that explain the differing effects after volume-matched high-load and low-load BFR training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-eight healthy participants were randomly assigned to the high-load blood flow restriction (BFR-HL, n = 14) and low-load blood flow restriction (BFR-LL, n = 14) groups. They underwent 3 weeks of BFR training for isometric wrist extension at intensities of 25% or 75% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) with matched training volume. Pre- and post-tests included MVC and trapezoidal force-tracking tests (0-75%-0% MVC) with multi-channel surface electromyography (EMG) from the extensor digitorum.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The BFR-HL group exhibited a greater strength gain than that of the BFR-LL group after training (BFR_HL: 26.96 ± 16.33% vs. BFR_LL: 11.16 ± 15.34%)(p = 0.020). However, only the BFR-LL group showed improvement in force steadiness for tracking performance in the post-test (p = 0.004), indicated by a smaller normalized change in force fluctuations compared to the BFR-HL group (p = 0.048). After training, the BFR-HL group activated motor units (MUs) with higher recruitment thresholds (p < 0.001) and longer inter-spike intervals (p = 0.002), contrary to the BFR-LL group, who activated MUs with lower recruitment thresholds (p < 0.001) and shorter inter-spike intervals (p < 0.001) during force-tracking. The discharge variability (p < 0.003) and common drive index (p < 0.002) of MUs were consistently reduced with training for the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>BFR-HL training led to greater strength gains, while BFR-LL training better improved force precision control due to activation of MUs with lower recruitment thresholds and higher discharge rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":16384,"journal":{"name":"Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11264616/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-024-01419-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance training has demonstrated efficacy in promoting strength gains beneficial for rehabilitation. Yet, the distinct functional advantages of BFR strength training using high-load and low-load protocols remain unclear. This study explored the behavioral and neurophysiological mechanisms that explain the differing effects after volume-matched high-load and low-load BFR training.
Methods: Twenty-eight healthy participants were randomly assigned to the high-load blood flow restriction (BFR-HL, n = 14) and low-load blood flow restriction (BFR-LL, n = 14) groups. They underwent 3 weeks of BFR training for isometric wrist extension at intensities of 25% or 75% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) with matched training volume. Pre- and post-tests included MVC and trapezoidal force-tracking tests (0-75%-0% MVC) with multi-channel surface electromyography (EMG) from the extensor digitorum.
Results: The BFR-HL group exhibited a greater strength gain than that of the BFR-LL group after training (BFR_HL: 26.96 ± 16.33% vs. BFR_LL: 11.16 ± 15.34%)(p = 0.020). However, only the BFR-LL group showed improvement in force steadiness for tracking performance in the post-test (p = 0.004), indicated by a smaller normalized change in force fluctuations compared to the BFR-HL group (p = 0.048). After training, the BFR-HL group activated motor units (MUs) with higher recruitment thresholds (p < 0.001) and longer inter-spike intervals (p = 0.002), contrary to the BFR-LL group, who activated MUs with lower recruitment thresholds (p < 0.001) and shorter inter-spike intervals (p < 0.001) during force-tracking. The discharge variability (p < 0.003) and common drive index (p < 0.002) of MUs were consistently reduced with training for the two groups.
Conclusions: BFR-HL training led to greater strength gains, while BFR-LL training better improved force precision control due to activation of MUs with lower recruitment thresholds and higher discharge rates.
期刊介绍:
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation considers manuscripts on all aspects of research that result from cross-fertilization of the fields of neuroscience, biomedical engineering, and physical medicine & rehabilitation.