Search

This study compared the acute hypoalgesic and neurophysiological responses to low-load resistance exercise with and without blood flow restriction (BFR), and free-flow, high-load exercise. Participants performed four experimental conditions where they completed baseline measures of pain pressure threshold (PPT), maximum voluntary force (MVF) with peripheral nerve stimulation to determine central and peripheral fatigue. Corticospinal excitability (CSE), corticospinal inhibition and short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) were estimated with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Participants then performed low-load leg press exercise at 30% of one-repetition maximum (LL); low-load leg press with BFR at 40% (BFR 40 ) or 80% (BFR 80 ) of limb occlusion pressure; or high-load leg press of four sets of 10 repetitions at 70% one-repetition maximum (HL). Measurements were repeated at 5, 45 min and 24 h post-exercise. There were no differences in CSE or SICI between conditions (all P > 0.05); however, corticospinal inhibition was reduced to a greater extent (11%-14%) in all low-load conditions compared to HL (P < 0.005). PPTs were 12%-16% greater at 5 min post-exercise in BFR 40 , BFR 80 and HL compared to LL (P ≤ 0.016). Neuromuscular fatigue displayed no clear difference in the magnitude or time course between conditions (all P > 0.05). In summary, low-load BFR resistance exercise does not induce different acute neurophysiological responses to low-load, free-flow exercise but it does promote a greater degree of hypoalgesia and reduces corticospinal inhibition more than high-load exercise, making it a useful rehabilitation tool. The changes in neurophysiology following exercise were not related to changes in PPT., (© 2024 The Authors. Experimental Physiology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Physiological Society.)

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.

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% V̇o 2max ; 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% V̇o 2max . 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 HI-AE (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.

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 nonexercising muscles. Venous blood samples were collected at the same timepoints to determine plasma concentrations of beta-endorphin 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 postexercise following both BFR-RE trials. Postexercise 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.

Background: We implemented a blood flow restriction resistance training (BFR-RT) intervention during an 8-week rehabilitation programme in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) patients within a National Health Service setting., Objective: To compare the effectiveness of BFR-RT and standard-care traditional heavy-load resistance training (HL-RT) at improving skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength, physical function, pain and effusion in ACLR patients following surgery., Methods: 28 patients scheduled for unilateral ACLR surgery with hamstring autograft were recruited for this parallel-group, two-arm, single-assessor blinded, randomised clinical trial following appropriate power analysis. Following surgery, a criteria-driven approach to rehabilitation was utilised and participants were block randomised to either HL-RT at 70% repetition maximum (1RM) (n = 14) or BFR-RT (n = 14) at 30% 1RM. Participants completed 8 weeks of biweekly unilateral leg press training on both limbs, totalling 16 sessions, alongside standard hospital rehabilitation. Resistance exercise protocols were designed consistent with standard recommended protocols for each type of exercise. Scaled maximal isotonic strength (10RM), muscle morphology of the vastus lateralis of the injured limb, self-reported function, Y-balance test performance and knee joint pain, effusion and range of motion (ROM) were assessed at pre-surgery, post-surgery, mid-training and post-training. Knee joint laxity and scaled maximal isokinetic knee extension and flexion strength at 60°/s, 150°/s and 300°/s were measured at pre-surgery and post-training., Results: Four participants were lost, with 24 participants completing the study (12 per group). There were no adverse events or differences between groups for any baseline anthropometric variable or pre- to post-surgery change in any outcome measure. Scaled 10RM strength significantly increased in the injured limb (104 ± 30% and 106 ± 43%) and non-injured limb (33 ± 13% and 39 ± 17%) with BFR-RT and HL-RT, respectively, with no group differences. Significant increases in knee extension and flexion peak torque were observed at all speeds in the non-injured limb with no group differences. Significantly greater attenuation of knee extensor peak torque loss at 150°/s and 300°/s and knee flexor torque loss at all speeds was observed with BFR-RT. No group differences in knee extensor peak torque loss were found at 60°/s. Significant and comparable increases in muscle thickness (5.8 ± 0.2% and 6.7 ± 0.3%) and pennation angle (4.1 ± 0.3% and 3.4 ± 0.1%) were observed with BFR-RT and HL-RT, respectively, with no group differences. No significant changes in fascicle length were observed. Significantly greater and clinically important increases in several measures of self-reported function (50-218 ± 48% vs. 35-152 ± 56%), Y-balance performance (18-59 ± 22% vs. 18-33 ± 19%), ROM (78 ± 22% vs. 48 ± 13%) and reductions in knee joint pain (67 ± 15% vs. 39 ± 12%) and effusion (6 ± 2% vs. 2 ± 2%) were observed with BFR-RT compared to HL-RT, respectively., Conclusion: BFR-RT can improve skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength to a similar extent to HL-RT with a greater reduction in knee joint pain and effusion, leading to greater overall improvements in physical function. Therefore, BFR-RT may be more appropriate for early rehabilitation in ACLR patient populations within the National Health Service.

Objective: Examine the comfort and pain experienced with blow flow restriction resistance training (BFR-RT) compared to standard care heavy load resistance training (HL-RT) during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) patient rehabilitation., Design: Randomised controlled trial., Setting: United Kingdom National Health Service., Participants: Twenty eight patients undergoing unilateral ACLR surgery with hamstring autograft were recruited. Following surgery participants were block randomised to either HL-RT at 70% repetition maximum (1RM) (n = 14) or BFR-RT (n = 14) at 30% 1RM and completed 8 weeks of twice weekly unilateral leg press training on both limbs., Main Outcome Measures: Perceived knee pain, muscle pain and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were assessed using Borg's (1998) RPE and pain scales during training. Knee pain was also assessed 24 h post-training., Results: There were no adverse events. Knee pain was lower with BFR-RT during (p < 0.05) and at 24 h post-training (p < 0.05) with BFR-RT for all sessions. Muscle pain was higher (p < 0.05) with BFR-RT compared to HL-RT during all sessions. RPE remained unchanged (p > 0.05) for both BFR-RT and HL-RT., Conclusion: ACLR patients experienced less knee joint pain and reported similar ratings of perceived exertion during and following leg press exercise with BFR-RT compared to traditional HL-RT. BFR-RT may be more advantageous during the early phases of post-surgery ACLR rehabilitation., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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., (Crown Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Physical exercise induces acute psychophysiological responses leading to chronic adaptations when the exercise stimulus is applied repeatedly, at sufficient time periods, and with appropriate magnitude. To maximize long-term training adaptations, it is crucial to control and manipulate the external load and the resulting psychophysiological strain. Therefore, scientists have developed a theoretical framework that distinguishes between the physical work performed during exercise (i.e., external load/intensity) and indicators of the body's psychophysiological response (i.e., internal load/intensity). However, the application of blood flow restriction (BFR) during exercise with low external loads/intensities (e.g., ≤ 30% of the one-repetition-maximum, ≤ 50% of maximum oxygen uptake) can induce physiological and perceptual responses, which are commonly associated with high external loads/intensities. This current opinion aimed to emphasize the mismatch between external and internal load/intensity when BFR is applied during exercise. In this regard, there is evidence that BFR can be used to manipulate both external load/intensity (by reducing total work when exercise is performed to exhaustion) and internal load/intensity (by leading to higher physiological and perceptual responses compared to exercise performed with the same external load/intensity without BFR). Furthermore, it is proposed to consider BFR as an additional exercise determinant, given that the amount of BFR pressure can determine not only the internal but also external load/intensity. Finally, terminological recommendations for the use of the proposed terms in the scientific context and for practitioners are given, which should be considered when designing, reporting, discussing, and presenting BFR studies, exercise, and/or training programs. Key Points: The application of BFR during exercise with low external load/intensity can lead to internal responses that are commonly associated with high external load/intensity resulting in a discrepancy between the characteristics of exercise and the acute psychophysiological responses. The BFR pressure can be adjusted to increase the internal load/intensity (i.e., elevating physiological and perceptual responses) to intensify the exercise stimulus or to decrease the external load/intensity (e.g., reducing the number of repetitions when exercise is performed to exhaustion), which is of particular importance during musculoskeletal rehabilitation when high or cumulative low mechanical stress might be contraindicated. We encourage researchers to adapt their wording in the BFR literature accordingly, given that the extent of internal load/intensity during BFR exercise is determined by the interaction of several external exercise variables (e.g., external resistance, number of repetitions/cycles, cuff pressure) to specify the generated exercise stimulus (e.g., "low external load BFR walking", "low external load BFR resistance exercise"). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current manuscript sets out a position stand for blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise, focusing on the methodology, application and safety of this mode of training. With the emergence of this technique and the wide variety of applications within the literature, the aim of this position stand is to set out a current research informed guide to BFR training to practitioners. This covers the use of BFR to enhance muscular strength and hypertrophy via training with resistance and aerobic exercise and preventing muscle atrophy using the technique passively. The authorship team for this article was selected from the researchers focused in BFR training research with expertise in exercise science, strength and conditioning and sports medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Low-load exercise training with blood flow restriction (BFR) can increase muscle strength and may offer an effective clinical musculoskeletal (MSK) rehabilitation tool. The aim of this review was to systematically analyse the evidence regarding the effectiveness of this novel training modality in clinical MSK rehabilitation.Design: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed literature examining BFR training in clinical MSK rehabilitation (Research Registry; researchregistry91).Data Sources: A literature search was conducted across SPORTDiscus (EBSCO), PubMed and Science Direct databases, including the reference lists of relevant papers. Two independent reviewers extracted study characteristics and MSK and functional outcome measures. Study quality and reporting was assessed using the Tool for the assEssment of Study qualiTy and reporting in EXercise.Eligibility: Search results were limited to exercise training studies investigating BFR training in clinical MSK rehabilitation, published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal in English.Results: Twenty studies were eligible, including ACL reconstruction (n=3), knee osteoarthritis (n=3), older adults at risk of sarcopenia (n=13) and patients with sporadic inclusion body myositis (n=1). Analysis of pooled data indicated low-load BFR training had a moderate effect on increasing strength (Hedges' g=0.523, 95% CI 0.263 to 0.784, p<0.001), but was less effective than heavy-load training (Hedges' g=0.674, 95% CI 0.296 to 1.052, p<0.001).Conclusion: Compared with low-load training, low-load BFR training is more effective, tolerable and therefore a potential clinical rehabilitation tool. There is a need for the development of an individualised approach to training prescription to minimise patient risk and increase effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]