Are calves trainable? Low-intensity calf muscle training with or without blood flow restriction: a randomized controlled trial

S. Gavanda, Matthias Eisenkolb, Steffen Held, S. Geisler, S. Gehlert
{"title":"Are calves trainable? Low-intensity calf muscle training with or without blood flow restriction: a randomized controlled trial","authors":"S. Gavanda, Matthias Eisenkolb, Steffen Held, S. Geisler, S. Gehlert","doi":"10.1515/teb-2024-0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n Whether low-load resistance training (RT) without muscle failure, with or without blood flow restriction (BFR), is sufficient to increase strength and muscle growth of calf muscles in trained individuals is still unclear. This study aimed to compare the effects of low-intensity BFR RT vs. traditional low-intensity RT (noBFR) with moderate training volume on strength and circumference.\n \n \n \n We designed a parallel, randomized controlled trial including 36 RT-trained participants (BFR: 7 females, 32.9 ± 8.8 years, 11 males, 28.4 ± 3.6 years; noBFR; 8 females, 29.6 ± 3.4 years; 10 males, 28.6 ± 4.9 years) who underwent eight weeks of twice-weekly low-load RT with 16 weekly RT sets (30 % of one-repetition maximum [1RM]). RT consisted of bilateral calf raises and seated unilateral calf raises, each conducted with 4 sets (30, 15, 15, 15 repetitions not to failure) of either BFR or noBFR. Outcome measures included calf circumference (CC), leg stiffness (LS), and various strength tests (seated and standing calf raise 1RM, isokinetic strength of plantar- and dorsiflexion).\n \n \n \n There were no significant interactions or group effects for most measures. Both groups showed significant improvements in seated calf raise strength (p=0.046, η\n 2\n p=0.17). Pairwise comparisons indicated moderate to large effect sizes for strength improvements (standardized mean differences: 0.35–1.11), but no changes in calf circumference were observed in either group.\n \n \n \n Low-load RT with and without BFR are useful to increase strength without necessarily affecting hypertrophy. Low-intensity BFR training did not confer additional benefits over traditional low-intensity RT for calf muscle strength or circumference, questioning its general advantage under such conditions.\n","PeriodicalId":519893,"journal":{"name":"Translational exercise biomedicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational exercise biomedicine","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/teb-2024-0015","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

Whether low-load resistance training (RT) without muscle failure, with or without blood flow restriction (BFR), is sufficient to increase strength and muscle growth of calf muscles in trained individuals is still unclear. This study aimed to compare the effects of low-intensity BFR RT vs. traditional low-intensity RT (noBFR) with moderate training volume on strength and circumference. We designed a parallel, randomized controlled trial including 36 RT-trained participants (BFR: 7 females, 32.9 ± 8.8 years, 11 males, 28.4 ± 3.6 years; noBFR; 8 females, 29.6 ± 3.4 years; 10 males, 28.6 ± 4.9 years) who underwent eight weeks of twice-weekly low-load RT with 16 weekly RT sets (30 % of one-repetition maximum [1RM]). RT consisted of bilateral calf raises and seated unilateral calf raises, each conducted with 4 sets (30, 15, 15, 15 repetitions not to failure) of either BFR or noBFR. Outcome measures included calf circumference (CC), leg stiffness (LS), and various strength tests (seated and standing calf raise 1RM, isokinetic strength of plantar- and dorsiflexion). There were no significant interactions or group effects for most measures. Both groups showed significant improvements in seated calf raise strength (p=0.046, η 2 p=0.17). Pairwise comparisons indicated moderate to large effect sizes for strength improvements (standardized mean differences: 0.35–1.11), but no changes in calf circumference were observed in either group. Low-load RT with and without BFR are useful to increase strength without necessarily affecting hypertrophy. Low-intensity BFR training did not confer additional benefits over traditional low-intensity RT for calf muscle strength or circumference, questioning its general advantage under such conditions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
小腿可以训练吗?有无血流限制的低强度小腿肌肉训练:随机对照试验
有无血流限制(BFR)的无肌肉衰竭低负荷阻力训练(RT)是否足以增加受训者小腿肌肉的力量和肌肉生长,目前仍不清楚。本研究旨在比较低强度血流受限阻力训练与传统低强度阻力训练(无血流受限阻力训练)(训练量适中)对力量和围度的影响。 我们设计了一项平行随机对照试验,包括 36 名接受过 RT 训练的参与者(BFR:7 名女性,32.9 ± 8.8 岁;11 名男性,28.4 ± 3.6 岁;noBFR:8 名女性,29.6 ± 3.4 岁;10 名男性,28.6 ± 4.9 岁)。RT 包括双侧小腿上举和坐姿单侧小腿上举,每次进行 4 组(30、15、15、15 次重复,不达失败)BFR 或 noBFR。结果测量包括小腿围(CC)、腿部僵硬度(LS)和各种力量测试(坐姿和站姿小腿上举 1RM 力量、跖屈和背屈的等动力量)。 大多数测量结果都没有明显的交互作用或组间效应。两组的坐位小腿上举力量均有明显改善(p=0.046,η 2 p=0.17)。配对比较表明,力量改善的效应大小为中等至较大(标准化平均差异:0.35-1.11),但两组的小腿围度均未发生变化。 带有或不带BFR的低负荷RT训练有助于增加力量,但不一定会影响肥大。与传统的低强度 RT 相比,低强度 BFR 训练在小腿肌肉力量或周长方面并没有带来额外的益处,这对其在此类条件下的普遍优势提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Why the dominance of East Africans in distance running? a narrative review A unique pseudo-eligibility analysis of longitudinal laboratory performance data from a transgender female competitive cyclist Caveolin-3 regulates slow oxidative myofiber formation in female mice Beyond the Olympic and Paralympic games Gender equality policy of the Olympic Movement in Chinese sport governing bodies: the case of elite volleyball
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1