Arterial and Venous Pressure Dynamics in Blood Flow Restriction Versus Traditional Strength Training

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
Sanghyeon Ji, Alexander Franz, Michaela Vicas, Tobias Boemer, Stefan Luckmann, Michael Behringer, Patrick Wahl
{"title":"Arterial and Venous Pressure Dynamics in Blood Flow Restriction Versus Traditional Strength Training","authors":"Sanghyeon Ji, Alexander Franz, Michaela Vicas, Tobias Boemer, Stefan Luckmann, Michael Behringer, Patrick Wahl","doi":"10.1111/sms.70029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Strength training responses are influenced by sets, repetitions, and mechanical load, whereas Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) training adds the variable of temporarily restricting blood flow via a tourniquet. This has intensified scientific discussions regarding the vascular responses and thereby safety of the BFR method. To address these concerns, we investigated intravascular pressure changes during low‐load (LL‐RT), low‐load with BFR (LL‐BFR‐RT), and high‐load (HL‐RT) exercise. Ten healthy men (26.8 ± 4.59 years) performed unilateral biceps curls to failure in a randomized cross‐over design: (1) LL‐RT (30% 1RM), (2) LL‐BFR‐RT (30% 1RM, 50% LOP), and (3) HL‐RT (75% 1RM). Total workload was significantly higher in LL‐RT (692 ± 251 kg) compared to LL‐BFR‐RT (378 ± 58.7 kg) and HL‐RT (327 ± 65.1 kg, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001). In terms of mean values, LL‐BFR‐RT resulted in higher diastolic and mean arterial pressures during rest periods between sets compared to other conditions (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> ≤ 0.02). Both LL‐RT and LL‐BFR‐RT led to longer durations spent at increased diastolic (above 90 mmHg, LL‐RT: ~419 s vs. LL‐BFR‐RT: ~356 s vs. Hl‐RT: ~122 s), systolic (above 140 mmHg, LL‐RT: ~437 s vs. LL‐BFR‐RT: ~336 s vs. HL‐RT: ~199 s), and mean arterial pressures (above 107 mmHg, LL‐RT: ~451 s vs. LL‐BFR‐RT: ~384 s vs. HL‐RT: ~168 s) compared to HL‐RT (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> ≤ 0.028). Relative to total exercise time, LL‐BFR‐RT resulted in higher proportion of time spent at elevated diastolic (above 90 mmHg, LL‐RT: ~56.5% vs. LL‐BFR‐RT: ~68.7% vs. Hl‐RT: ~33.5%) and mean arterial pressures (above 107 mmHg, LL‐RT: ~60.8% vs. LL‐BFR‐RT: ~74.0% vs. HL‐RT: ~45.7%) compared to HL‐RT (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> ≤ 0.034). Peripheral venous pressure was significantly higher in LL‐BFR‐RT compared to other conditions (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001), with both absolute and relative time spent at higher pressures (above 75 mmHg, LL‐RT: ~57.0 s and ~ 9.12% vs. LL‐BFR‐RT: ~424 s and ~ 81.7% vs. HL‐RT: ~36.0 s and ~ 8.99%, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> ≤ 0.002). Our results suggest that BFR training performed to failure imposes greater arterial and venous stress in the exercising limb compared to high‐load training without BFR, particularly due to prolonged exposure to elevated pressures. Further research is needed to assess the potential risks of elevated local arterial and venous pressure responses by frequent BFR use, particularly in populations with pre‐existing medical conditions.","PeriodicalId":21466,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.70029","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Strength training responses are influenced by sets, repetitions, and mechanical load, whereas Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) training adds the variable of temporarily restricting blood flow via a tourniquet. This has intensified scientific discussions regarding the vascular responses and thereby safety of the BFR method. To address these concerns, we investigated intravascular pressure changes during low‐load (LL‐RT), low‐load with BFR (LL‐BFR‐RT), and high‐load (HL‐RT) exercise. Ten healthy men (26.8 ± 4.59 years) performed unilateral biceps curls to failure in a randomized cross‐over design: (1) LL‐RT (30% 1RM), (2) LL‐BFR‐RT (30% 1RM, 50% LOP), and (3) HL‐RT (75% 1RM). Total workload was significantly higher in LL‐RT (692 ± 251 kg) compared to LL‐BFR‐RT (378 ± 58.7 kg) and HL‐RT (327 ± 65.1 kg, p < 0.001). In terms of mean values, LL‐BFR‐RT resulted in higher diastolic and mean arterial pressures during rest periods between sets compared to other conditions (p ≤ 0.02). Both LL‐RT and LL‐BFR‐RT led to longer durations spent at increased diastolic (above 90 mmHg, LL‐RT: ~419 s vs. LL‐BFR‐RT: ~356 s vs. Hl‐RT: ~122 s), systolic (above 140 mmHg, LL‐RT: ~437 s vs. LL‐BFR‐RT: ~336 s vs. HL‐RT: ~199 s), and mean arterial pressures (above 107 mmHg, LL‐RT: ~451 s vs. LL‐BFR‐RT: ~384 s vs. HL‐RT: ~168 s) compared to HL‐RT (p ≤ 0.028). Relative to total exercise time, LL‐BFR‐RT resulted in higher proportion of time spent at elevated diastolic (above 90 mmHg, LL‐RT: ~56.5% vs. LL‐BFR‐RT: ~68.7% vs. Hl‐RT: ~33.5%) and mean arterial pressures (above 107 mmHg, LL‐RT: ~60.8% vs. LL‐BFR‐RT: ~74.0% vs. HL‐RT: ~45.7%) compared to HL‐RT (p ≤ 0.034). Peripheral venous pressure was significantly higher in LL‐BFR‐RT compared to other conditions (p < 0.001), with both absolute and relative time spent at higher pressures (above 75 mmHg, LL‐RT: ~57.0 s and ~ 9.12% vs. LL‐BFR‐RT: ~424 s and ~ 81.7% vs. HL‐RT: ~36.0 s and ~ 8.99%, p ≤ 0.002). Our results suggest that BFR training performed to failure imposes greater arterial and venous stress in the exercising limb compared to high‐load training without BFR, particularly due to prolonged exposure to elevated pressures. Further research is needed to assess the potential risks of elevated local arterial and venous pressure responses by frequent BFR use, particularly in populations with pre‐existing medical conditions.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
4.90%
发文量
162
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports is a multidisciplinary journal published 12 times per year under the auspices of the Scandinavian Foundation of Medicine and Science in Sports. It aims to publish high quality and impactful articles in the fields of orthopaedics, rehabilitation and sports medicine, exercise physiology and biochemistry, biomechanics and motor control, health and disease relating to sport, exercise and physical activity, as well as on the social and behavioural aspects of sport and exercise.
×
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