Darío Rodrigo-Mallorca, Joaquín Mollá-Sanchis, Iván Chulvi-Medrano, Luis M Franco-Grau
{"title":"Effects of Superimposed Blood Flow Restriction on Isokinetic Knee Extension.","authors":"Darío Rodrigo-Mallorca, Joaquín Mollá-Sanchis, Iván Chulvi-Medrano, Luis M Franco-Grau","doi":"10.3390/jfmk10020167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To evaluate changes in the isokinetic concentric moment of the knee extensors and the moment-velocity curve during the application of no BFR compared to superimposed BFR. <b>Methods:</b> A total of 37 physically active adults [33.73 (10.96) years; 11 females] performed three sets of isokinetic concentric knee extensions, each including three angular velocities (300°/s, 210°/s, and 120°/s; BIODEX dynamometer). BFR at 40% (BFR40) and 80% (BFR80) of the maximal pressure occlusion (MPO) were applied randomly after an equal control protocol without BFR (BFR0). <b>Results:</b> No significant differences were found for any interaction between the BFR condition and angular velocity (<i>p</i> > 0.05); 109.78 ± 32.90 vs. 71.24 ± 11.18, 116.68 ± 27.29 vs. 74.40 ± 15.11, and 113.91 ± 28.43 vs. 72.95 ± 13.76 Nm at 300°/s; 137.60 ± 35.27 vs. 88.85 ± 15.23, 135.40 ± 33.04 vs. 86.32 ± 17.38, and 132.68 ± 31.99 vs. 85.39 ± 16.25 Nm at 210°/s; 177.62 ± 41.40 vs. 114.72 ± 20.10, 166.40 ± 45.39 vs. 198.14 ± 21.80, and 162.60 ± 40.10 vs. 109.09 ± 18.90 Nm at 120°/s, for BFR0, BFR40, and BFR80, respectively. There were significant differences in the interactions by gender. <b>Conclusions:</b> Superimposed application of BFR at 40% MPO and 80% MPO during an isokinetic knee extension did not cause any acute change in the ability to produce maximal moment or power. The use of BFR may not generate an ergogenic effect that is sufficient to cause acute changes in force production.</p>","PeriodicalId":16052,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology","volume":"10 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12101149/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk10020167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate changes in the isokinetic concentric moment of the knee extensors and the moment-velocity curve during the application of no BFR compared to superimposed BFR. Methods: A total of 37 physically active adults [33.73 (10.96) years; 11 females] performed three sets of isokinetic concentric knee extensions, each including three angular velocities (300°/s, 210°/s, and 120°/s; BIODEX dynamometer). BFR at 40% (BFR40) and 80% (BFR80) of the maximal pressure occlusion (MPO) were applied randomly after an equal control protocol without BFR (BFR0). Results: No significant differences were found for any interaction between the BFR condition and angular velocity (p > 0.05); 109.78 ± 32.90 vs. 71.24 ± 11.18, 116.68 ± 27.29 vs. 74.40 ± 15.11, and 113.91 ± 28.43 vs. 72.95 ± 13.76 Nm at 300°/s; 137.60 ± 35.27 vs. 88.85 ± 15.23, 135.40 ± 33.04 vs. 86.32 ± 17.38, and 132.68 ± 31.99 vs. 85.39 ± 16.25 Nm at 210°/s; 177.62 ± 41.40 vs. 114.72 ± 20.10, 166.40 ± 45.39 vs. 198.14 ± 21.80, and 162.60 ± 40.10 vs. 109.09 ± 18.90 Nm at 120°/s, for BFR0, BFR40, and BFR80, respectively. There were significant differences in the interactions by gender. Conclusions: Superimposed application of BFR at 40% MPO and 80% MPO during an isokinetic knee extension did not cause any acute change in the ability to produce maximal moment or power. The use of BFR may not generate an ergogenic effect that is sufficient to cause acute changes in force production.