Daphney M. Stanford, Matthew A. Chatlaong, William M. Miller, Matthew B. Jessee. University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown if the exercise response to a common clinical (CLIN) blood flow restriction (BFR) device differs from a common research device (RES). The purpose of this study was to compare the BFR exercise response between devices. METHODS: On the first of two visits, 15 individuals had maximal strength (1RM) assessed. Visit 2 consisted of 4 sets (S1, S2, S3, S4) of bicep curls at 30% 1RM and 50% arterial occlusion pressure (AOP), one arm with CLIN and the other with RES. Device and arm order were counterbalanced. After a 5min rest, pre-exercise AOP (mmHg) was measured. Muscle thickness (MT, cm) at 70% of the upper arm and maximal isometric force (N) were assessed pre-exercise (Pre), immediately (Post), 5min (Post5), and 10min (Post10) after. Tissue saturation index (TSI, %) for sets was measured at the forearm. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and discomfort (DIS) were assessed pre-exercise and after each set for RPE and 20 sec after each set for DIS. AOP was compared with a Bayesian paired t-test. All others were compared with Bayesian RMANOVA. Results presented as mean±SD. BF10=likelihood of the best model vs the null. RESULTS: AOP (RES=144.4±19.8; CLIN=138.3±25.8) did not differ (BF10=0.795). A time effect (BF10=1.942e+21) suggests force decreased Pre (230.7±77.9) to Post (145.2±50.5; BF10=2.088e+8), increased Post to Post5 (190.6±69.5; BF10=688721.630) and did not differ Post5 to Post10 (194.5±68.9; BF10=0.433). A time effect (BF10=1.566e+17) suggests MT increased Pre (4.0±.8) to Post (4.5±.9; all BF10=1.646e+10), decreased Post to Post5 (4.4±.9; BF10=80.411), and Post5 to Post10 (4.4±.9; BF10=0.268) did not differ. A time+condition model (BF10=435.966) suggests TSI increased from S1 (53.6±9.7) to S2 (56.9±10.8; BF10=322.137) but did not differ across S2, S3 (57.5±9.8), and S4 (57.6±9.3; all≤BF10=.341). CLIN (55.2±8.8) TSI was lower than RES (57.6±11.1; BF10=12.358). A time effect (BF10=7.776e+66) suggests RPE increased Pre (0±0) to S1 (7±2; BF10=1.534e+13), S1 to S2 (8±2; BF10=3.361), S2 to S3 (8±1; BF10=4.209), and S3 to S4 (9±1; BF10=6.491). A time effect (BF10=4.703e+30) suggests DIS increased Pre (0±0) to S1 (5±3; BF10=1.427e+7), S1 to S2 (5±2; BF10=2.662), but did not differ from S2 to S3 (6±2; BF10=0.436) or S3 to S4 (6±2; BF10=0.437). CONCLUSIONS: Overall the exercise response may not differ between devices, but tissue saturation index may be greater with the research device.

This document is currently not available here.