A. Saeterbakken, V. Andersen, N. Stien, Helene Pedersen, T. E. Solstad, M. Shaw, Mari Hårstad Meslo, A. Wergeland, Vegard Vereide, Espen Hermans
{"title":"The effects of acute blood flow restriction on climbing-specific tests","authors":"A. Saeterbakken, V. Andersen, N. Stien, Helene Pedersen, T. E. Solstad, M. Shaw, Mari Hårstad Meslo, A. Wergeland, Vegard Vereide, Espen Hermans","doi":"10.1051/sm/2020004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of the study was to compare climbing specific performance tests with and without blood flow restriction (BFR). Thirty one climbers (age 26.9 ± 5.5 years, height 177.2 ± 7.5 cm, weight 70.5 ± 8.3 kg, fat percentage 11.9 ± 4.1 %, climbing skill 18.9 ± 4.0 IRCRA scale) performed climbing specific grip tests measuring isometric strength (peak force, rate of force development and maximal voluntary contraction (and dynamic strength (power and peak velocity in pull-up) on a 23-mm campus rung. Further, an intermittent finger endurance (7 seconds work, 3 seconds rest at 60% of maximal voluntary contraction) test to failure was conducted. All tests were performed on two separate occasions (separated by 2–5 days) with and without blood flow restriction (200 mmHg) in a randomized order. The results demonstrated no differences in the isometric strength tests (p = 0.496–0.850, ES = 0.060–0.170), dynamic strength test (p = 0.226–0.442, ES = 0.200–0.330) or the intermittent finger endurance test (p = 0.563, ES = 0.160). In conclusion, no differences were observed in the maximal isometric pull-up test, dynamic pull-up test or finger endurance tests including measurements as peak force, MVC, RFD, power output, peak velocity or time to fatigue at 60% of MVC with and without BFR.","PeriodicalId":52082,"journal":{"name":"Movement and Sports Sciences - Science et Motricite","volume":"1 1","pages":"7-14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1051/sm/2020004","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Movement and Sports Sciences - Science et Motricite","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1051/sm/2020004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
Abstract
The aim of the study was to compare climbing specific performance tests with and without blood flow restriction (BFR). Thirty one climbers (age 26.9 ± 5.5 years, height 177.2 ± 7.5 cm, weight 70.5 ± 8.3 kg, fat percentage 11.9 ± 4.1 %, climbing skill 18.9 ± 4.0 IRCRA scale) performed climbing specific grip tests measuring isometric strength (peak force, rate of force development and maximal voluntary contraction (and dynamic strength (power and peak velocity in pull-up) on a 23-mm campus rung. Further, an intermittent finger endurance (7 seconds work, 3 seconds rest at 60% of maximal voluntary contraction) test to failure was conducted. All tests were performed on two separate occasions (separated by 2–5 days) with and without blood flow restriction (200 mmHg) in a randomized order. The results demonstrated no differences in the isometric strength tests (p = 0.496–0.850, ES = 0.060–0.170), dynamic strength test (p = 0.226–0.442, ES = 0.200–0.330) or the intermittent finger endurance test (p = 0.563, ES = 0.160). In conclusion, no differences were observed in the maximal isometric pull-up test, dynamic pull-up test or finger endurance tests including measurements as peak force, MVC, RFD, power output, peak velocity or time to fatigue at 60% of MVC with and without BFR.
期刊介绍:
Movement & Sport Sciences - Science & Motricité is a peer-reviewed journal published on behalf of the French Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences (ACAPS). The journal publishes scientific articles related to human movement, physical activity, rehabilitation, sport and performance in a multidisciplinary perspective. All scientific disciplines are represented: physiology, biomecanics, neuroscience, motor control, psychology, sociology, management, history, epistemology. Fundamental, empirical and more applied or technological approaches are welcome.