COMPARING THE EXERCISE RESPONSE AND IMMEDIATE RECOVERY BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION DEVICES
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.
Stanford, DM; Chatlaong, MA; Miller, WM; and Jessee, MB
"COMPARING THE EXERCISE RESPONSE AND IMMEDIATE RECOVERY BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION DEVICES,"
International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings: Vol. 16:
1, Article 161.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol16/iss1/161