Blood flow restriction training attenuates changes in local muscle endurance: At odds with previous work?

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PHYSIOLOGY
William B. Hammert, Ryo Kataoka, Yujiro Yamada, Jun Seob Song, Jeremy P. Loenneke
{"title":"Blood flow restriction training attenuates changes in local muscle endurance: At odds with previous work?","authors":"William B. Hammert,&nbsp;Ryo Kataoka,&nbsp;Yujiro Yamada,&nbsp;Jun Seob Song,&nbsp;Jeremy P. Loenneke","doi":"10.1113/EP091924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Ida and Sasaki (<span>2024</span>) reported that exercising to failure without blood flow restriction resulted in greater increases in local muscle endurance than exercising to failure with blood flow restriction. The authors attributed their results (of their second experiment) to the differences in total exercise volume (i.e., load multiplied by the total number of repetitions over the training period) between conditions, and provided a correlation for support (Ida &amp; Sasaki, <span>2024</span>). Their correlation, however, appears to count each individual twice (i.e., <i>n </i>= 8 with 16 dots), which would violate the assumption of independence. Dr. Wernbom (<span>2024</span>) recently provided a viewpoint on Ida and Sasaki's study. We agree that more research is needed to better understand how low load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction impacts the mechanisms underlying improvements in muscle endurance. However, we also believe it is important to discuss Ida and Sasaki's findings in the context of the existing literature. More specifically, we believe their observation that blood flow restriction attenuated changes in local muscle endurance, and their explanation for such, should be acknowledged as being at odds with published studies.</p><p>Table 1 summarizes the characteristics and results of 10 blood flow restriction training studies that examined changes in local muscle endurance using pre- to post-intervention changes in the number of repetitions to failure (i.e., in a manner similar to that of Ida and Sasaki (<span>2024</span>)). In their introduction, Ida and Sasaki (<span>2024</span>) pointed out that, to their knowledge, the impact of blood flow restriction on exercise volume, muscle endurance adaptations, and their association has not been studied systematically. Over 10 years ago, however, Kacin and Strazar (<span>2011</span>) reported that exercising to failure with blood flow restriction improved local muscle endurance to a greater extent than a repetition-matched, low load training protocol performed without blood flow restriction (Table 1). In their discussion, Ida and Sasaki (<span>2024</span>) acknowledged the work of Kacin and Strazar (<span>2011</span>), and suggested that the discrepancies between studies highlight the importance of exercise volume for improving muscle endurance capacity. A few years after the Kacin and Strazar study was published, Fahs et al. (<span>2015</span>) compared muscular adaptations between low load resistance training with and without blood flow restriction in middle-aged men and women (i.e., 42–62 years). In comparison to Kacin and Strazar's study, Fahs et al.’s study was unique in that both training protocols exercised to failure. Fahs et al. (<span>2015</span>) observed similar increases in local muscle endurance, despite the fact that blood flow restriction significantly reduced the total exercise training volume. Two other studies (Buckner et al., <span>2020</span>; Jessee et al., <span>2018</span>) have demonstrated that performing very low load training (to or near failure) with and without lower blood flow restriction pressures led to similar increases in local muscle endurance. Importantly, the application of blood flow restriction resulted in fewer repetitions (and thus, total training volume) being performed across an 8-week training period (Buckner et al., <span>2020</span>; Jessee et al., <span>2018</span>). Indeed, in the study of Jessee et al. (<span>2018</span>), the application of a higher blood flow restriction pressure resulted in fewer repetitions (i.e., lower total training volume) being performed, yet actually enhanced local muscle endurance adaptations over and above very low load training (to or near failure) without blood flow restriction. Additional data have shown that higher applied pressures result in lower total training volumes, but similar increases in local muscular endurance compared to lower applied pressure (Buckner et al., <span>2020</span>; Counts et al., <span>2016</span>; Morley et al., <span>2021</span>).</p><p>Ida and Sasaki (<span>2024</span>) concluded that blood flow restriction may impair changes in local muscle endurance compared to free flow exercise (i.e., exercising without blood flow restriction), which is at odds with previous research (Table 1). They (Ida &amp; Sasaki, <span>2024</span>) attributed their findings to the differences in total training volume between conditions, which is also at odds with previous research (Buckner et al., <span>2020</span>; Fahs et al., <span>2015</span>; Jessee et al., <span>2018</span>). We are not suggesting that Ida and Sasaki (<span>2024</span>) should have acknowledged and discussed all 10 studies that are presented in Table 1, as some appear to be less relevant to their current design. However, in our opinion, it would have been helpful to at least discuss the Fahs et al. (<span>2015</span>) study, as well as those which prescribed lower load resistance training to or near failure with and without blood flow restriction (Buckner et al., <span>2020</span>; Jessee et al., <span>2018</span>). The literature suggests that performing low load resistance training to (or near) failure with blood flow restriction will likely reduce total training volume compared to low load training without blood flow restriction (Buckner et al., <span>2020</span>; Fahs et al., <span>2015</span>; Jessee et al., <span>2018</span>). Yet, apart from the study of Ida and Sasaki (<span>2024</span>), it does not seem as though such reductions in total training volume will attenuate changes in local muscle endurance compared to performing low load resistance training without blood flow restriction (Table 1). We acknowledge that variation exists in the training protocols used across the highlighted studies, as well as how changes in local muscle endurance have been measured (Table 1), and that each study is not without its own set of potential limitations (e.g., within-subject unilateral training models). The discrepancies between Ida and Sasaki (<span>2024</span>)’s findings and the rest of the literature remain speculative, but may stem from Ida and Sasaki (<span>2024</span>)’s use of a one-set exercise training protocol. Perhaps multiple sets of exercise, as used in previous studies (Table 1), provides a stimulus that is capable of eliminating the attenuation observed with single-set blood flow restricted exercise. More research is needed to corroborate Ida and Sasaki's (<span>2024</span>) data and provide additional insight into how applying blood flow restriction during a single-set exercise training protocol impacts changes in local muscle endurance, perhaps compared to single- and multiple-set exercise protocols without blood flow restriction.</p><p>All authors approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All persons designated as authors qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify for authorship are listed.</p><p>None declared.</p><p>None.</p>","PeriodicalId":12092,"journal":{"name":"Experimental Physiology","volume":"109 8","pages":"1395-1398"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11291865/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/EP091924","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ida and Sasaki (2024) reported that exercising to failure without blood flow restriction resulted in greater increases in local muscle endurance than exercising to failure with blood flow restriction. The authors attributed their results (of their second experiment) to the differences in total exercise volume (i.e., load multiplied by the total number of repetitions over the training period) between conditions, and provided a correlation for support (Ida & Sasaki, 2024). Their correlation, however, appears to count each individual twice (i.e., = 8 with 16 dots), which would violate the assumption of independence. Dr. Wernbom (2024) recently provided a viewpoint on Ida and Sasaki's study. We agree that more research is needed to better understand how low load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction impacts the mechanisms underlying improvements in muscle endurance. However, we also believe it is important to discuss Ida and Sasaki's findings in the context of the existing literature. More specifically, we believe their observation that blood flow restriction attenuated changes in local muscle endurance, and their explanation for such, should be acknowledged as being at odds with published studies.

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics and results of 10 blood flow restriction training studies that examined changes in local muscle endurance using pre- to post-intervention changes in the number of repetitions to failure (i.e., in a manner similar to that of Ida and Sasaki (2024)). In their introduction, Ida and Sasaki (2024) pointed out that, to their knowledge, the impact of blood flow restriction on exercise volume, muscle endurance adaptations, and their association has not been studied systematically. Over 10 years ago, however, Kacin and Strazar (2011) reported that exercising to failure with blood flow restriction improved local muscle endurance to a greater extent than a repetition-matched, low load training protocol performed without blood flow restriction (Table 1). In their discussion, Ida and Sasaki (2024) acknowledged the work of Kacin and Strazar (2011), and suggested that the discrepancies between studies highlight the importance of exercise volume for improving muscle endurance capacity. A few years after the Kacin and Strazar study was published, Fahs et al. (2015) compared muscular adaptations between low load resistance training with and without blood flow restriction in middle-aged men and women (i.e., 42–62 years). In comparison to Kacin and Strazar's study, Fahs et al.’s study was unique in that both training protocols exercised to failure. Fahs et al. (2015) observed similar increases in local muscle endurance, despite the fact that blood flow restriction significantly reduced the total exercise training volume. Two other studies (Buckner et al., 2020; Jessee et al., 2018) have demonstrated that performing very low load training (to or near failure) with and without lower blood flow restriction pressures led to similar increases in local muscle endurance. Importantly, the application of blood flow restriction resulted in fewer repetitions (and thus, total training volume) being performed across an 8-week training period (Buckner et al., 2020; Jessee et al., 2018). Indeed, in the study of Jessee et al. (2018), the application of a higher blood flow restriction pressure resulted in fewer repetitions (i.e., lower total training volume) being performed, yet actually enhanced local muscle endurance adaptations over and above very low load training (to or near failure) without blood flow restriction. Additional data have shown that higher applied pressures result in lower total training volumes, but similar increases in local muscular endurance compared to lower applied pressure (Buckner et al., 2020; Counts et al., 2016; Morley et al., 2021).

Ida and Sasaki (2024) concluded that blood flow restriction may impair changes in local muscle endurance compared to free flow exercise (i.e., exercising without blood flow restriction), which is at odds with previous research (Table 1). They (Ida & Sasaki, 2024) attributed their findings to the differences in total training volume between conditions, which is also at odds with previous research (Buckner et al., 2020; Fahs et al., 2015; Jessee et al., 2018). We are not suggesting that Ida and Sasaki (2024) should have acknowledged and discussed all 10 studies that are presented in Table 1, as some appear to be less relevant to their current design. However, in our opinion, it would have been helpful to at least discuss the Fahs et al. (2015) study, as well as those which prescribed lower load resistance training to or near failure with and without blood flow restriction (Buckner et al., 2020; Jessee et al., 2018). The literature suggests that performing low load resistance training to (or near) failure with blood flow restriction will likely reduce total training volume compared to low load training without blood flow restriction (Buckner et al., 2020; Fahs et al., 2015; Jessee et al., 2018). Yet, apart from the study of Ida and Sasaki (2024), it does not seem as though such reductions in total training volume will attenuate changes in local muscle endurance compared to performing low load resistance training without blood flow restriction (Table 1). We acknowledge that variation exists in the training protocols used across the highlighted studies, as well as how changes in local muscle endurance have been measured (Table 1), and that each study is not without its own set of potential limitations (e.g., within-subject unilateral training models). The discrepancies between Ida and Sasaki (2024)’s findings and the rest of the literature remain speculative, but may stem from Ida and Sasaki (2024)’s use of a one-set exercise training protocol. Perhaps multiple sets of exercise, as used in previous studies (Table 1), provides a stimulus that is capable of eliminating the attenuation observed with single-set blood flow restricted exercise. More research is needed to corroborate Ida and Sasaki's (2024) data and provide additional insight into how applying blood flow restriction during a single-set exercise training protocol impacts changes in local muscle endurance, perhaps compared to single- and multiple-set exercise protocols without blood flow restriction.

All authors approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All persons designated as authors qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify for authorship are listed.

None declared.

None.

血流限制训练可减轻局部肌肉耐力的变化:与之前的研究不符?
Ida 和 Sasaki(2024 年)报告说,在不限制血流的情况下运动至衰竭比在限制血流的情况下运动至衰竭更能增强局部肌肉的耐力。作者将他们(第二次实验)的结果归因于不同条件下总运动量(即负荷乘以训练期间的总重复次数)的差异,并提供了相关性作为佐证(Ida &amp; Sasaki, 2024)。不过,他们的相关性似乎对每个个体都计算了两次(即 n = 8,16 个点),这违反了独立性假设。Wernbom 博士(2024 年)最近对 Ida 和 Sasaki 的研究提出了自己的观点。我们同意需要进行更多的研究,以更好地了解限制血流的低负荷阻力运动是如何影响肌肉耐力改善的内在机制的。不过,我们也认为在现有文献的背景下讨论 Ida 和 Sasaki 的研究结果非常重要。表 1 总结了 10 项血流受限训练研究的特点和结果,这些研究使用重复到失败次数在干预前和干预后的变化(即与 Ida 和 Sasaki(2024 年)的方法类似)来检测局部肌肉耐力的变化。Ida 和 Sasaki(2024 年)在介绍中指出,据他们所知,血流限制对运动量、肌肉耐力适应性的影响及其关联性尚未得到系统研究。然而,早在 10 多年前,Kacin 和 Strazar(2011 年)就报告说,与不限制血流的重复匹配、低负荷训练方案相比,限制血流的失败锻炼能在更大程度上提高局部肌肉耐力(表 1)。Ida 和 Sasaki(2024 年)在讨论中肯定了 Kacin 和 Strazar(2011 年)的研究成果,并认为研究之间的差异凸显了运动量对提高肌肉耐力能力的重要性。在 Kacin 和 Strazar 的研究发表几年后,Fahs 等人(2015 年)比较了中年男性和女性(即 42-62 岁)在有和没有血流限制的低负荷阻力训练之间的肌肉适应性。与 Kacin 和 Strazar 的研究相比,Fahs 等人的研究的独特之处在于两种训练方案都锻炼到了极限。Fahs等人(2015年)观察到,尽管血流限制大大减少了总运动训练量,但局部肌肉耐力却有类似的增长。另外两项研究(Buckner 等人,2020 年;Jessee 等人,2018 年)表明,在进行极低负荷训练(达到或接近衰竭)时,采用和不采用较低的血流限制压力都会导致局部肌肉耐力的类似增长。重要的是,在为期 8 周的训练中,施加血流限制会减少重复次数(从而减少总训练量)(Buckner 等人,2020 年;Jessee 等人,2018 年)。事实上,在 Jessee 等人(2018 年)的研究中,施加较高的血流限制压力导致重复次数减少(即总训练量降低),但实际上却增强了局部肌肉耐力适应能力,超过了无血流限制的极低负荷训练(达到或接近衰竭)。Ida 和 Sasaki(2024 年)得出结论认为,与自由流运动(即不受血流限制的运动)相比,血流限制可能会损害局部肌肉耐力的变化,这与之前的研究不符(表 1)。他们(Ida &amp; Sasaki, 2024)将研究结果归因于不同条件下总训练量的差异,这也与之前的研究(Buckner等人,2020;Fahs等人,2015;Jessee等人,2018)不符。我们并不是说 Ida 和 Sasaki(2024 年)应该承认并讨论表 1 中列出的所有 10 项研究,因为有些研究似乎与他们目前的设计不太相关。不过,我们认为,至少应该讨论 Fahs 等人(2015 年)的研究,以及那些规定进行低负荷阻力训练以达到或接近衰竭,同时限制或不限制血流的研究(Buckner 等人,2020 年;Jessee 等人,2018 年)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Experimental Physiology
Experimental Physiology 医学-生理学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
262
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Experimental Physiology publishes research papers that report novel insights into homeostatic and adaptive responses in health, as well as those that further our understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms in disease. We encourage papers that embrace the journal’s orientation of translation and integration, including studies of the adaptive responses to exercise, acute and chronic environmental stressors, growth and aging, and diseases where integrative homeostatic mechanisms play a key role in the response to and evolution of the disease process. Examples of such diseases include hypertension, heart failure, hypoxic lung disease, endocrine and neurological disorders. We are also keen to publish research that has a translational aspect or clinical application. Comparative physiology work that can be applied to aid the understanding human physiology is also encouraged. Manuscripts that report the use of bioinformatic, genomic, molecular, proteomic and cellular techniques to provide novel insights into integrative physiological and pathophysiological mechanisms are welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信