Nicholas Rolnick, Victor S de Queiros, Masoud Moghaddam, Evan Peikon, Susannah Taylor, Samantha Watson, Campbell Ruffhead, Sean Zupnik, Tim Werner
{"title":"Cardiovascular, perceptual, and performance responses to single- vs. multi-chambered blood flow restriction cuffs.","authors":"Nicholas Rolnick, Victor S de Queiros, Masoud Moghaddam, Evan Peikon, Susannah Taylor, Samantha Watson, Campbell Ruffhead, Sean Zupnik, Tim Werner","doi":"10.3389/fspor.2024.1469356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the impact of the blood flow restriction bladder type (single- [SC-BFR] vs. multi-chambered [MC-BFR]) on exercise performance, cardiovascular responses, and perceptual experiences with exercise sessions incorporating multiple sets to volitional failure in a randomized, crossover experimental design.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-seven healthy, physically active participants (age: 22.6 ± 5.7; weight: 74.3 ± 15.8 kg; height: 171.7 ± 7.7 cm; BMI: 25.0 ± 4.1 kg/m2; ∼93% reported regular resistance training within 6 months; 11 females) randomly performed exercise to failure (4× sets to failure, 20% 1RM, 1 min rest between sets) in each of three conditions: SC-BFR (using the Delfi Personalized Tourniquet Device inflated to 60% limb occlusion pressure), MC-BFR (using the B Strong Cuffs inflated to 300 mmHg according to manufacturer recommendations), and N-BFR (no BFR control).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>SC-BFR blunted post-exercise increases in carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (<i>p</i> = 0.328) (+3.3%) whereas the other conditions showed elevations (MC-BFR +11.8% [<i>p</i> = 0.041], N-BFR +9.3% [<i>p</i> = 0.012]). Discomfort was lower in N-BFR compared to SC-BFR (<i>p</i> < 0.001) and MC-BFR (<i>p</i> = 0.035) but all displayed similar exertion (<i>p</i> = 0.176). Median total repetitions achieved were significantly less in SC-BFR (57 [25-75th percentile: 47-65) than MC-BFR (76 [63-91] (<i>p</i> = 0.043) and N-BFR [106 (97-148)] <i>p</i> = 0.005). Per set repetition volumes were similar on set 1 between SC-BFR (<i>p</i> < 0.001) and MC-BFR (<i>p</i> = 0.001) and were lower than N-BFR (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.001) whereas in sets 2-4, MC-BFR performed similar number of repetitions as N-BFR (<i>p</i> = 0.984-1.000).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Bladder design of a BFR cuff has an impact on the acute responses to exercise if applied according to recommended application guidelines, as SC-BFR impacts performance to a greater degree and mitigates post-exercise arterial stiffness responses compared to MC-BFR and N-BFR while both BFR conditions display greater levels of discomfort compared to N-BFR.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>NCT06276673.</p>","PeriodicalId":12716,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Sports and Active Living","volume":"6 ","pages":"1469356"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11602278/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Sports and Active Living","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2024.1469356","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to investigate the impact of the blood flow restriction bladder type (single- [SC-BFR] vs. multi-chambered [MC-BFR]) on exercise performance, cardiovascular responses, and perceptual experiences with exercise sessions incorporating multiple sets to volitional failure in a randomized, crossover experimental design.
Methods: Twenty-seven healthy, physically active participants (age: 22.6 ± 5.7; weight: 74.3 ± 15.8 kg; height: 171.7 ± 7.7 cm; BMI: 25.0 ± 4.1 kg/m2; ∼93% reported regular resistance training within 6 months; 11 females) randomly performed exercise to failure (4× sets to failure, 20% 1RM, 1 min rest between sets) in each of three conditions: SC-BFR (using the Delfi Personalized Tourniquet Device inflated to 60% limb occlusion pressure), MC-BFR (using the B Strong Cuffs inflated to 300 mmHg according to manufacturer recommendations), and N-BFR (no BFR control).
Results: SC-BFR blunted post-exercise increases in carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (p = 0.328) (+3.3%) whereas the other conditions showed elevations (MC-BFR +11.8% [p = 0.041], N-BFR +9.3% [p = 0.012]). Discomfort was lower in N-BFR compared to SC-BFR (p < 0.001) and MC-BFR (p = 0.035) but all displayed similar exertion (p = 0.176). Median total repetitions achieved were significantly less in SC-BFR (57 [25-75th percentile: 47-65) than MC-BFR (76 [63-91] (p = 0.043) and N-BFR [106 (97-148)] p = 0.005). Per set repetition volumes were similar on set 1 between SC-BFR (p < 0.001) and MC-BFR (p = 0.001) and were lower than N-BFR (p ≤ 0.001) whereas in sets 2-4, MC-BFR performed similar number of repetitions as N-BFR (p = 0.984-1.000).
Conclusion: Bladder design of a BFR cuff has an impact on the acute responses to exercise if applied according to recommended application guidelines, as SC-BFR impacts performance to a greater degree and mitigates post-exercise arterial stiffness responses compared to MC-BFR and N-BFR while both BFR conditions display greater levels of discomfort compared to N-BFR.