Search

Purpose: We examined the concurrent characteristics of the remote development of strength and cross-sectional area (CSA) of upper body skeletal muscle in response to lower body resistance training performed with an applied blood flow restriction (BFR)., Methods: Males allocated to an experimental BFR group (EXP; n = 12) or a non-BFR control group (CON; n = 12) completed 7-weeks of resistance training comprising three sets of unilateral bicep curls [50% 1-repetition maximum (1-RM)], then four sets of bilateral knee extension and flexion exercises (30% 1-RM). EXP performed leg exercises with an applied BFR (60% limb occlusion pressure). 1-RM strength was measured using bilateral leg exercises and unilateral bicep curls in both trained and untrained arms. Muscle CSA was measured via peripheral quantitative computed tomography in the dominant leg and both arms., Results: 1-RM in the trained arm increased more in EXP (2.5 ± 0.4 kg; mean ± SEM) than the contralateral untrained arm (0.8 ± 0.4 kg), and the trained arm of CON (0.6 ± 0.3 kg, P < 0.05). The increase in knee extension 1-RM was twofold that of CON (P < 0.01). Knee flexion 1-RM, leg CSA, and trained arm CSA increased similarly between groups (P > 0.05), while untrained arm CSA did not change (P > 0.05)., Conclusion: Lower limb BFR training increased trained arm strength more than the contralateral untrained arm, and the trained arm of controls. However, there was no additional effect on muscle CSA. These findings support evidence for a BFR training-derived remote strength transfer that may be relevant to populations with localised movement disorders.

Background: Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) has analgesic/anti-inflammatory properties that may be a suitable alternative to over-the-counter (OTC) non-steroidal analgesics/anti-inflammatories. While OTC pain medications can impair strength training adaptations, the mechanism of action of PEA is distinct from these and it may not negatively affect skeletal muscle adaptations to strength training. Methods: The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effects of daily PEA supplementation (350 mg Levagen + equivalent to 300 mg PEA) combined with 8-weeks of resistance training on lean body mass with secondary aims addressing strength, power, sleep, and wellbeing compared to placebo (PLA) in young, healthy, active adults. In a randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial, 52 untrained, recreationally active participants aged 18–35 y were allocated to either the PEA or PLA groups. Participants consumed either 2 × 175 mg Levagen + PEA or identically matched maltodextrin capsules during an 8-week period of whole-body resistance training. This trial assessed the pre- to post- changes in total and regional lean body mass, muscular strength (1-RM bench, isometric mid-thigh pull), muscular power [countermovement jump (CMJ), bench throw], pain associated with exercise training, sleep, and wellbeing compared with the PEA or PLA condition. Results: 48 Participants were included in the final intention to treat (ITT) analysis and we also conducted per protocol (PP) analysis (n = 42). There were no significant between-group differences for total or regional lean muscle mass post-intervention. There was a significantly higher jump height (CMJ) at week 10 in the PEA group compared to the PLA (Adjusted mean difference [95% CI] p-value; ITT: − 2.94 cm [− 5.15, − 0.74] p = 0.010; PP: − 2.93 cm [− 5.31, − 0.55] p = 0.017). The PLA group had higher 1-RM bench press post-intervention compared with the PEA group (ITT: 2.24 kg [0.12, 4.37] p = 0.039; PP: 2.73 kg [0.40, 5.06] p = 0.023). No significant treatment effects were noted for any of the other outcomes. Conclusion: PEA supplementation, when combined with 8 weeks of strength training, did not impair lean mass gains and it resulted in significantly higher dynamic lower-body power when compared with the PLA condition. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR: ACTRN12621001726842p). Key Findings: Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) is a compound that works as an anti-inflammatory and analgesic for the management of pain that works on different biochemical pathways compared to other over-the-counter analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories. Our findings indicate that a daily dose of 300 mg of PEA administered during 8-weeks of strength training did not interfere with skeletal muscle hypertrophy gains and may improve lower body power (e.g., jump height) compared to the placebo group. PEA may fill the gap for athletes and the active population as an alternative method of pain management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resistance-based blood flow restriction training (BFRT) improves skeletal muscle strength and size. Unlike heavy-load resistance training (HLRT), there is debate as to whether strength adaptations following BFRT interventions can be primarily attributed to concurrent muscle hypertrophy, as the magnitude of hypertrophy is often minor. The present study aimed to investigate the effect of 7 weeks of BFRT and HLRT on muscle strength and hypertrophy. The expression of protein growth markers from muscle biopsy samples was also measured. Male participants were allocated to moderately heavy-load training (HL; n = 9), low-load BFRT (LL + BFR; n = 8), or a control (CON; n = 9) group to control for the effect of time. HL and LL + BFR completed 21 training sessions (3 d.week−1) comprising bilateral knee extension and knee flexion exercises (HL = 70% one-repetition maximum (1-RM), LL + BFR = 20% 1-RM + blood flow restriction). Bilateral knee extension and flexion 1-RM strength were assessed, and leg muscle CSA was measured via peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Protein growth markers were measured in vastus lateralis biopsy samples taken pre- and post the first and last training sessions. Biopsy samples were also taken from CON at the same time intervals as HL and LL + BFR. Knee extension 1-RM strength increased in HL (19%) and LL + BFR (19%) but not CON (2%; p < 0.05). Knee flexion 1-RM strength increased similarly between all groups, as did muscle CSA (50% femur length; HL = 2.2%, LL + BFR = 3.0%, CON = 2.1%; TIME main effects). 4E-BP1 (Thr37/46) phosphorylation was lower in HL and LL + BFR immediately post-exercise compared with CON in both sessions (p < 0.05). Expression of other growth markers was similar between groups (p > 0.05). Overall, BFRT and HLRT improved muscle strength and size similarly, with comparable changes in intramuscular protein growth marker expression, both acutely and chronically, suggesting the activation of similar anabolic pathways. However, the low magnitude of muscle hypertrophy was not significantly different to the non-training control suggesting that strength adaptation following 7 weeks of BFRT is not driven by hypertrophy, but rather neurological adaptation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Blood flow restriction or KAATSU exercise training is associated with greater muscle mass and strength increases than non-blood flow restriction equivalent exercise. Blood flow restriction exercise has been proposed as a possible alternative to more physically demanding exercise prescriptions (such as high-load/high-intensity resistance training) in a range of clinical and chronic disease populations. While the maintenance of muscle mass and size with reduced musculoskeletal tissue loading appeals in many of these physically impaired populations, there remains a disconnect between some of the desired clinical measures for chronic disease populations and those commonly measured in the literature examining blood flow restriction exercise. While strength does play a vital role in physical function, task-specific objective measures of physical function indicative of activities of daily living are often more clinically relevant and applicable for evaluating the success of medical and surgical interventions or monitoring age- and disease-related physical decline. Objective: To determine whether exercise interventions utilizing blood flow restriction are able to improve objective measures of physical function indicative of activities of daily living. Methods: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Springer identified 13 randomized control trials utilizing an exercise intervention combined with blood flow restriction, while measuring at least one objective measure of physical function. Participants were ≥18 years of age. Systematic review of the literature and quality assessment of the included studies used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk bias. Results: Data from 13 studies with a total of 332 participants showed blood flow restriction exercise, regardless of modality, most notably increased performance on the 30 s sit-to-stand and timed up and go tests, and generally improved physical function on other tests including walking tests, variations of sit-to-stand tests, and balance, jumping, and stepping tests. Conclusions: From the evidence available, blood flow restriction exercise of multiple modalities improved objective measures of physical function indicative of activities of daily living. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: No current guidelines or recommendations exist informing the selection of restriction pressure during blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE). Moreover, the effects of specific relative restriction pressures on the acute muscle, metabolic and cardiopulmonary responses to BFRE are unclear. The purpose of this study was to characterize these acute responses at different levels of restriction pressure. Methods: Participants (n = 10) completed rhythmic isometric knee extension exercise across five experimental trials in a balanced randomized order. Three were BFRE trials {B-40 [restriction pressure set to 40% LOP (total limb occlusion pressure)]; B-60 (60% LOP); and B-80 (80% LOP)} with a workload equivalent to 20% maximal voluntary force (MVC), one was non-BFRE at 20% MVC (LL) and one was non-BFRE at 80% MVC (HL). Measurements recorded were torque, muscle activity via electromyography (EMG), tissue oxygenation via near infrared spectroscopy, whole body oxygen consumption, blood lactate and heart rate. Results: For the LL and B-40 trials, most measures remained constant. However, for the B-60 and B-80 trials, significant fatigue was demonstrated by a reduction in MVC torque across the trial (p < 0.05). Blood lactate increased from baseline in HL, B-60, and B-80 (p < 0.05). Submaximal EMG was greater in B-60 and B-80 than LL, but lower compared with HL (p < 0.05). Tissue oxygenation decreased in HL, B-40, B-60, and B-80 (p < 0.05), which was lower in the B-80 trial compared to all other trials (p < 0.01). Whole body oxygen consumption was not different between the BFRE trials (p > 0.05). Conclusion: We demonstrate graded/progressive acute responses with increasing applied pressure during BFRE, from which we speculate that an effective minimum "threshold" around 60% LOP may be necessary for BFRE to be effective with training. While these data provide some insight on the possible mechanisms by which BFRE develops skeletal muscle size and strength when undertaken chronically across a training program, the outcomes of chronic training programs using different levels of applied restriction pressures remain to be tested. Overall, the present study recommends 60–80% LOP as a suitable "minimum" BFRE pressure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the role of low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training on skeletal muscle damage. It provides discussion of the concept of the BFR training through several studies and its role in improving skeletal muscle strength in patients who are contra-indicated from performing traditional heavy-load resistance exercise. It also emphasizes that low-load BFR training can elicit muscle hypertrophy without inducing muscle damage and oxidative stress.