A Moderate Blood Flow Restriction Pressure Does Not Affect Maximal Strength or Neuromuscular Responses.

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1519/JSC.0000000000004907
Sean M Lubiak, John E Lawson, David H Gonzalez Rojas, Christopher E Proppe, Paola M Rivera, Shane M Hammer, Michael A Trevino, Taylor K Dinyer-McNeely, Tony R Montgomery, Alex A Olmos, Kylie N Sears, Haley C Bergstrom, Pasquale J Succi, Joshua L Keller, Ethan C Hill
{"title":"A Moderate Blood Flow Restriction Pressure Does Not Affect Maximal Strength or Neuromuscular Responses.","authors":"Sean M Lubiak, John E Lawson, David H Gonzalez Rojas, Christopher E Proppe, Paola M Rivera, Shane M Hammer, Michael A Trevino, Taylor K Dinyer-McNeely, Tony R Montgomery, Alex A Olmos, Kylie N Sears, Haley C Bergstrom, Pasquale J Succi, Joshua L Keller, Ethan C Hill","doi":"10.1519/JSC.0000000000004907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Lubiak, SM, Lawson, JE, Gonzalez Rojas, DH, Proppe, CE, Rivera, PM, Hammer, SM, Trevino, MA, Dinyer-McNeely, TK, Montgomery, TR, Olmos, AA, Sears, KN, Bergstrom, HC, Succi, PJ, Keller, JL, and Hill, EC. A moderate blood flow restriction pressure does not affect maximal strength or neuromuscular responses. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2024-The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) applied at 60% of total arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) on maximal strength. Eleven college-aged female subjects completed two testing sessions of maximal unilateral concentric, isometric, and eccentric leg extension muscle actions performed with and without BFR. Separate 3 (mode [isometric, concentric, eccentric]) × 2 (condition [BFR, no BFR]) × 2 (visit [2, 3]) repeated-measures analysis of variances were used to examine mean differences in maximal strength, neuromuscular function, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and pain. For maximal strength (collapsed across condition and visit), isometric (128.5 ± 22.7 Nm) and eccentric (114.5 ± 35.4 Nm) strength were greater than concentric maximal strength (89.3 ± 22.3 Nm) (p < 0.001-0.041). Muscle excitation relative (%) to isometric non-BFR was greater during the concentric (108.6 ± 31.5%) than during the eccentric (86.7 ± 29.2%) (p = 0.045) assessments but not different than isometric (93.4 ± 17.9%) (p = 0.109) assessments, collapsed across condition and visit. For RPE, there was an interaction such that RPE was greater during non-BFR (4.3 ± 1.7) than during BFR (3.7 ± 1.7) (p = 0.031) during the maximal concentric strength assessments. Furthermore, during maximal strength assessments performed with BFR, isometric RPE (5.8 ± 1.9) was greater than concentric (3.7 ± 1.7) (p = 0.005) and eccentric (4.6 ± 1.9) (p = 0.009) RPE. Finally, pain was greater during the isometric (2.8 ± 2.1 au) than during the concentric (1.8 ± 1.5 au) (p = 0.016), but not eccentric, maximal strength assessments (2.1 ± 1.6 au) (p = 0.126), collapsed across condition and visit. The application of BFR at 60% AOP did not affect concentric, isometric, or eccentric maximal strength or neuromuscular function. Trainers, clinicians, and researchers can prescribe exercise interventions relative to a restricted (when using a moderate AOP) or nonrestricted assessment of maximal strength.</p>","PeriodicalId":17129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004907","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: Lubiak, SM, Lawson, JE, Gonzalez Rojas, DH, Proppe, CE, Rivera, PM, Hammer, SM, Trevino, MA, Dinyer-McNeely, TK, Montgomery, TR, Olmos, AA, Sears, KN, Bergstrom, HC, Succi, PJ, Keller, JL, and Hill, EC. A moderate blood flow restriction pressure does not affect maximal strength or neuromuscular responses. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2024-The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) applied at 60% of total arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) on maximal strength. Eleven college-aged female subjects completed two testing sessions of maximal unilateral concentric, isometric, and eccentric leg extension muscle actions performed with and without BFR. Separate 3 (mode [isometric, concentric, eccentric]) × 2 (condition [BFR, no BFR]) × 2 (visit [2, 3]) repeated-measures analysis of variances were used to examine mean differences in maximal strength, neuromuscular function, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and pain. For maximal strength (collapsed across condition and visit), isometric (128.5 ± 22.7 Nm) and eccentric (114.5 ± 35.4 Nm) strength were greater than concentric maximal strength (89.3 ± 22.3 Nm) (p < 0.001-0.041). Muscle excitation relative (%) to isometric non-BFR was greater during the concentric (108.6 ± 31.5%) than during the eccentric (86.7 ± 29.2%) (p = 0.045) assessments but not different than isometric (93.4 ± 17.9%) (p = 0.109) assessments, collapsed across condition and visit. For RPE, there was an interaction such that RPE was greater during non-BFR (4.3 ± 1.7) than during BFR (3.7 ± 1.7) (p = 0.031) during the maximal concentric strength assessments. Furthermore, during maximal strength assessments performed with BFR, isometric RPE (5.8 ± 1.9) was greater than concentric (3.7 ± 1.7) (p = 0.005) and eccentric (4.6 ± 1.9) (p = 0.009) RPE. Finally, pain was greater during the isometric (2.8 ± 2.1 au) than during the concentric (1.8 ± 1.5 au) (p = 0.016), but not eccentric, maximal strength assessments (2.1 ± 1.6 au) (p = 0.126), collapsed across condition and visit. The application of BFR at 60% AOP did not affect concentric, isometric, or eccentric maximal strength or neuromuscular function. Trainers, clinicians, and researchers can prescribe exercise interventions relative to a restricted (when using a moderate AOP) or nonrestricted assessment of maximal strength.

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
适度的血流限制压力不会影响最大力量或神经肌肉反应。
摘要: Lubiak、SM、Lawson、JE、Gonzalez Rojas、DH、Proppe、CE、Rivera、PM、Hammer、SM、Trevino、MA、Dinyer-McNeely、TK、Montgomery、TR、Olmos、AA、Sears、KN、Bergstrom、HC、Succi、PJ、Keller、JL 和 Hill、EC。适度的血流限制压力不会影响最大力量或神经肌肉反应。J Strength Cond Res XX(X):000-000,2024--本研究的目的是考察血流限制(BFR)在总动脉闭塞压力(AOP)的 60% 时对最大力量的急性影响。11 名大学年龄的女性受试者分别完成了两次最大单侧同心、等长和偏心伸腿肌肉动作的测试。分别采用 3(模式[等长、同心、偏心])×2(条件[BFR,无 BFR])×2(访问[2,3])重复测量方差分析来检验最大力量、神经肌肉功能、感知用力评分(RPE)和疼痛的平均差异。就最大力量而言(在不同条件和访问中折叠),等长(128.5 ± 22.7 牛米)和偏心(114.5 ± 35.4 牛米)力量大于同心最大力量(89.3 ± 22.3 牛米)(P < 0.001-0.041)。在同心(108.6 ± 31.5%)比偏心(86.7 ± 29.2%)(p = 0.045)评估中,肌肉兴奋相对于等长非 BFR 的百分比(%)更高,但与等长评估(93.4 ± 17.9%)(p = 0.109)相比,在不同条件和访问中没有差异。就 RPE 而言,在最大同心力量评估中,非 BFR(4.3 ± 1.7)比 BFR(3.7 ± 1.7)(p = 0.031)的 RPE 更大。此外,在使用 BFR 进行最大力量评估时,等长 RPE(5.8 ± 1.9)大于同心 RPE(3.7 ± 1.7)(p = 0.005)和偏心 RPE(4.6 ± 1.9)(p = 0.009)。最后,等长(2.8 ± 2.1 au)比同心(1.8 ± 1.5 au)(p = 0.016),但不是偏心最大力量评估(2.1 ± 1.6 au)(p = 0.126)时的疼痛感更强,这在不同条件和访问中都是相同的。在 60% AOP 时应用 BFR 不会影响同心、等长或偏心最大力量或神经肌肉功能。训练员、临床医生和研究人员可以根据最大力量的限制性评估(使用中等 AOP 时)或非限制性评估制定运动干预措施。
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
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
9.40%
发文量
384
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The editorial mission of The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (JSCR) is to advance the knowledge about strength and conditioning through research. A unique aspect of this journal is that it includes recommendations for the practical use of research findings. While the journal name identifies strength and conditioning as separate entities, strength is considered a part of conditioning. This journal wishes to promote the publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts which add to our understanding of conditioning and sport through applied exercise science.
期刊最新文献
Does Cathodal Preconditioning Enhance the Effects of Subsequent Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Corticospinal Excitability and Grip Strength? Evaluation of Trunk Oblique Muscle Activities in Baseball Batters Using T2-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Frequency of Velocity-Based-Training Frequency Impacts Changes in Muscle Morphology, Neuromuscular Performance, and Functional Capability in Persons With Parkinson's Disease. Position-Specific Differences in Speed Profiles Among National Football League Scouting Combine Participants. Prediction of Snatch and Clean and Jerk Performance From Physical Performance Measures in Elite Male Weightlifters.
×
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