Search

Applying blood flow restriction (BFR) during low-load exercise induces beneficial adaptations of the myotendinous and neuromuscular systems. Despite the low mechanical tension, BFR exercise facilitates a localized hypoxic environment and increase in metabolic stress, widely regarded as the primary stimulus for tissue adaptations. First evidence indicates that low-load BFR exercise is effective in promoting an osteogenic response in bone, although this has previously been postulated to adapt primarily during high-impact weight-bearing exercise. Besides studies investigating the acute response of bone biomarkers following BFR exercise, first long-term trials demonstrate beneficial adaptations in bone in both healthy and clinical populations. Despite the increasing number of studies, the physiological mechanisms are largely unknown. Moreover, heterogeneity in methodological approaches such as biomarkers of bone metabolism measured, participant and study characteristics, and time course of measurement renders it difficult to formulate accurate conclusions. Furthermore, incongruity in the methods of BFR application (e.g., cuff pressure) limits the comparability of datasets and thus hinders generalizability of study findings. Appropriate use of biomarkers, effective BFR application, and befitting study design have the potential to progress knowledge on the acute and chronic response of bone to BFR exercise and contribute toward the development of a novel strategy to protect or enhance bone health. Therefore, the purpose of the present synthesis review is to 1) evaluate current mechanistic evidence; 2) discuss and offer explanations for similar and contrasting data findings; and 3) create a methodological framework for future mechanistic and applied research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The extent towhich exercise training with blood flowrestriction (BFR) improves functional performance (FP) in people with sarcopenia remains unclear. We performed a comprehensive search of BFR training in subjects with sarcopenia or susceptible to sarcopenia hoping to perform a systematic review and metaanalysis on the effects of BFR on FP in older adults without medical disorders, but with or susceptible to sarcopenia. Methods: PubMed and the Cochrane library were searched through February 2022. Inclusion criteria were: 1) the study examined older adults (>55 years of age) with or susceptible to sarcopenia and free of overt acute or chronic diseases, 2) there was a random allocation of participants to BFR and active control groups, 3) BFR was the sole intervention difference between the groups, and 4) the study provided post-intervention measures of skeletal muscle and physical function which were either the same or comparable to those included in the revised European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) diagnostic algorithm. Results: Nostudies of BFR training in individuals with sarcopenia were found and no study included individuals with FP values below the EWGSOP criteria. However, four studies of BFR training in older adults in which FP was examined were found. BFR training significantly improved the timed up and go (MD = -0.46, z = 2.43, p = 0.02), 30-s chair stand (MD = 2.78, z = 3.72, p < 0.001), and knee extension strength (standardized MD = 0.5, z = 2.3, p = 0.02) in older adults. Conclusion: No studies of BFR exercise appear to have been performed in patients with or suspected sarcopenia based on latest diagnostic criteria. Despite the absence of such studies, BFR training was found to significantly improve the TUG, 30-s chair stand, and knee extension strength in older adults. Studies examining the effects of BFR in subjects belowEWGSOPcut-off points are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE) has become a common method to increase skeletal muscle strength and hypertrophy for individuals with a variety of conditions. A substantial literature of BFRE in older adults exists in which significant gains in strength and functional performance have been observed without report of adverse events. Research examining the effects of BFRE in heart disease (HD) and heart failure (HF) appears to be increasing for which reason the Muscle Hypothesis of Chronic Heart Failure (MHCHF) will be used to fully elucidate the effects BFRE may have in patients with HD and HF highlighted in the MHCHF. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was performed in PubMed and the Cochrane library through February 2022. Inclusion criteria were: 1) the study was original research conducted in human subjects older than 18 years of age and diagnosed with either HD or HF, 2) study participants performed BFRE, and 3) post-intervention outcome measures of cardiovascular function, physical performance, skeletal muscle function and structure, and/or systemic biomarkers were provided. Exclusion criteria included review articles and articles on viewpoints and opinions of BFRE, book chapters, theses, dissertations, and case study articles. Results: Seven BFRE studies in HD and two BFRE studies in HF were found of which four of the HD and the two HF studies examined a variety of measures reflected within the MHCHF over a period of 8-24 weeks. No adverse events were reported in any of the studies and significant improvements in skeletal muscle strength, endurance, and work as well as cardiorespiratory performance, mitochondrial function, exercise tolerance, functional performance, immune humoral function, and possibly cardiac performance were observed in one or more of the reviewed studies. Conclusion: In view of the above systematic review, BFRE has been performed safely with no report of adverse event in patients with a variety of different types of HD and in patients with HF. The components of the MHCHF that can be potentially improved with BFRE include left ventricular dysfunction, inflammatory markers, inactivity, a catabolic state, skeletal and possibly respiratory muscle myopathy, dyspnea and fatigue, ANS activity, and peripheral blood flow. Furthermore, investigation of feasibility, acceptability, adherence, adverse effects, and symptoms during and after BFRE is needed since very few studies have examined these important issues comprehensively in patients with HD and HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined the effect of aerobic exercise with and without blood flow restriction (BFR) on exercise-induced hypoalgesia and endogenous opioid and endocannabinoid systems. In a randomized crossover design, pain-free individuals performed 20 min of cycling in four experimental trials: 1) low-intensity aerobic exercise (LI-AE) at 40% V_O2max; 2) LI-AE with low-pressure BFR (BFR40); 3) LI-AE with high-pressure BFR (BFR80); and 4) high-intensity aerobic exercise (HI-AE) at 70% V_O2max. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were assessed before and 5 min postexercise. Circulating concentrations of beta-endorphin and 2-arachidonoylglycerol were assessed before and 10 min postexercise. In the exercising legs, postexercise PPTs were increased following BFR40 and BFR80 compared with LI-AE (23-32% vs. 1-2% increase, respectively). The increase in PPTs was comparable to HIAE (17-20% increase) with BFR40 and greater with BFR80 (30-32% increase). Both BFR80 and HI-AE increased PPTs in remote areas of the body (increase of 26-28% vs. 19-21%, respectively). Postexercise circulating beta-endorphin concentration was increased following BFR40 (11%) and HI-AE (14%), with the greatest change observed following BFR80 (29%). Postexercise circulating 2-arachidonoylglycerol concentration was increased following BFR40 (22%) and BFR80 (20%), with the greatest change observed following HI-AE (57%). Addition of BFR to LI-AE can trigger both local and systemic hypoalgesia that is not observed follow LI-AE alone and activate endogenous opioid and endocannabinoid systems of pain inhibition. Compared with HI-AE, local and systemic hypoalgesia following LI-AE with high-pressure BFR is greater and comparable, respectively. LI-AE with BFR may help pain management in load-compromised individuals. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We have shown that performing blood flow restriction (BFR) during low-intensity aerobic exercise can trigger local and systemic hypoalgesia, which is not typically observed with this intensity of exercise. High-pressure BFR triggers greater and comparable hypoalgesia than high-intensity aerobic exercise in the exercising limbs and remote areas of the body, respectively. Performing BFR during low-intensity aerobic exercise activates the opioid and endocannabinoid systems, providing novel insight into potential mechanisms of hypoalgesia with BFR exercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to investigate and compare the magnitude of exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH) with low-intensity blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance exercise (RE) at varying pressures to other intensities of resistance exercise and examine endogenous mechanisms of pain reduction. Twelve individuals performed four experimental trials involving unilateral leg press exercise in a randomized crossover design: low-load RE at 30% of one repetition maximum (1RM), high-load RE (70% 1RM), and BFR-RE (30% 1RM) at a low and high pressure. BFR pressure was prescribed relative to limb occlusion pressure at 40% and 80% for the low- and high-pressure trials. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were assessed before and 5 min and 24 h following exercise in exercising and non-exercising muscles. Venous blood samples were collected at the same timepoints to determine plasma concentrations of betaendorphin and 2-arachidonoylglycerol. High-pressure BFR-RE increased PPTs in the exercising limb to a greater extent than all other trials. Comparable systemic EIH effects were observed with HLRE and both BFR-RE trials. PPTs in the exercising limb remained elevated above baseline at 24 h post-exercise following both BFR-RE trials. Post-exercise plasma beta-endorphin concentration was elevated during the BFR-RE trials. No changes to 2-arachidonoylglycerol concentration were observed. High pressure BFR-RE causes a greater EIH response in the exercising limb that persists for up to 24 h following exercise. The reduction in pain sensitivity with BFR-RE is partly driven by endogenous opioid production of beta-endorphin. BFR-RE should be investigated as a possible pain-modulation tool in individuals with acute and chronic pain. NEW & NOTEWORTHY High-pressure blood flow restriction (BFR) causes a greater hypoalgesia response in the exercising limb (48%) compared with light and heavy load resistance exercise (10 – 34%). Performing light load resistance exercise with BFR causes systemic hypoalgesia comparable with heavy load resistance exercise (10 –18%). BFR resistance exercise prolonged the exercise-induced hypoalgesia response for 24 h in the exercising limb (15% and 24%, respectively). Activation of endogenous opioid production and a conditioned pain modulation effect partly mediate the relationship between exercise and hypoalgesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Blood flow restriction (BFR) has been identified as a potential countermeasure to mitigate physiological deconditioning during spaceflight. Guidelines recommend that tourniquet pressure be prescribed relative to limb occlusion pressure (LOP); however, it is unclear whether body tilting or reduced gravity analogues influence LOP. We examined LOP at the leg and arm during supine bedrest and bodyweight suspension (BWS) at 6° head‐down tilt (HDT), horizontal (0°), and 9.5° head‐up tilt (HUT) positions. Twenty‐seven adults (age, 26 ± 5 years; height, 1.75 ± 0.08 m; body mass, 73 ± 12 kg) completed all tilts during bedrest. A subgroup (n = 15) additionally completed the tilts during BWS. In each position, LOP was measured twice in the leg and arm using the Delfi Personalized Tourniquet System after 5 min of rest and again after a further 5 min. The LOP at the leg increased significantly from 6° HDT to 9.5° HUT in bedrest and BWS by 9–15 mmHg (Cohen's d = 0.7–1.0). Leg LOP was significantly higher during BWS at horizontal and 9.5° HUT postures relative to the same angles during bedrest by 8 mmHg (Cohen's d = 0.6). Arm LOP remained unchanged between body tilts and analogues. Intraclass correlation coefficients for LOP measurements taken after an initial and subsequent 5 min rest period in all conditions ranged between 0.91–0.95 (leg) and 0.83–0.96 (arm). It is advised that LOP be measured before the application of a vascular occlusion in the same body tilt/setting to which it is applied to minimize discrepancies between the actual and prescribed tourniquet pressure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To compare the acute perceptual and blood pressure responses to: 1) light load blood flow restriction resistance exercise (BFR-RE) in non-injured individuals and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) patients; and 2) light load BFR-RE and heavy load RE (HL-RE) in ACLR patients. Design Between-subjects, partially-randomised. Methods This study comprised 3 groups: non-injured BFR-RE (NI-BFR); ACLR patients BFR-RE (ACLR-BFR); ACLR patients HL-RE (ACLR-HL). NI-BFR and ACLR-BFR performed 4 sets (30, 15, 15, 15 reps, total = 75 reps, 30s inter-set rest) of unilateral leg press exercise at 30% 1RM with continuous BFR at 80% limb occlusive pressure. ACLR-HL performed 3 × 10 reps (Total = 30 reps, 30s inter-set rest) of unilateral leg press exercise at 70% 1RM. Perceived exertion (RPE), muscle pain, knee pain and pre- and 5-min post-exercise blood pressure were measured. Results RPE was higher in ACLR-BFR compared to NI-BFR ( p  < 0.05). Muscle pain was higher in NI-BFR and ACLR-BFR compared to ACLR-HL ( p  < 0.05). Knee pain was lower in ACLR-BFR compared to ACLR-HL ( p  < 0.01). There were no differences in blood pressure. Conclusion These responses to BFR exercise may not limit application and favourably influence knee pain throughout ACLR rehabilitation training programmes. These findings can help inform practitioners' decisions to utilise this tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]