在有和无血流限制的高负荷阻力训练中的个体肌肉肥大:近红外光谱法

IF 2.3 2区 医学 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES
João Guilherme Almeida Bergamasco, Diego Bittencourt, Deivid Gomes Silva, Thaís Marina Pires de Campos Biazon, Samuel Domingos Soligon, Ramon Martins Oliveira, Cleiton Augusto Libardi
{"title":"在有和无血流限制的高负荷阻力训练中的个体肌肉肥大:近红外光谱法","authors":"João Guilherme Almeida Bergamasco, Diego Bittencourt, Deivid Gomes Silva, Thaís Marina Pires de Campos Biazon, Samuel Domingos Soligon, Ramon Martins Oliveira, Cleiton Augusto Libardi","doi":"10.1080/02640414.2024.2437588","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We aimed to compare individual hypertrophic responses to high-load resistance training (HL-RT) or high-load with blood flow restriction (HL-BFR). Furthermore, we investigated whether greater responsiveness to one of the protocols could be explained by acute changes in blood deoxyhemoglobin concentration (HHb) and total hemoglobin concentration (tHb) (proxy markers of metabolic stress). Ten untrained participants had their legs randomized into both HL-RT and HL-BFR and underwent 10 weeks of training. Muscle cross-sectional area (mCSA) was measured at baseline and post training, while HHb and tHb during the final session. Using a threshold of 2 × typical errors (3.24%) to compare protocols, five participants showed greater mCSA increases after HL-RT (16.44 ± 7.90%) compared to HL-BFR (10.74 ± 7.12%, <i>p</i> = 0.0054) and five did not respond better to HL-RT (8.95 ± 10.83%) compared to HL-BFR (13.33 ± 8.59%) (<i>p</i> = 0.3105). Additionally, HL-RT induced lower HHb (5855.78 ± 12905.99; <i>p</i> = 0.0101) and tHb (-43169.70 ± 37793.17; <i>p</i> = 0.0030) AUC values compared to HL-BFR (HHb: 39254.80 ± 27020.15; tHb: 46309.40 ± 31613.97). In conclusion, despite the higher levels of metabolic stress markers, most participants did not present greater muscle hypertrophy by combining blood flow restriction with HL-RT.</p>","PeriodicalId":17066,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sports Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Individual muscle hypertrophy in high-load resistance training with and without blood flow restriction: A near-infrared spectroscopy approach.\",\"authors\":\"João Guilherme Almeida Bergamasco, Diego Bittencourt, Deivid Gomes Silva, Thaís Marina Pires de Campos Biazon, Samuel Domingos Soligon, Ramon Martins Oliveira, Cleiton Augusto Libardi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02640414.2024.2437588\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We aimed to compare individual hypertrophic responses to high-load resistance training (HL-RT) or high-load with blood flow restriction (HL-BFR). Furthermore, we investigated whether greater responsiveness to one of the protocols could be explained by acute changes in blood deoxyhemoglobin concentration (HHb) and total hemoglobin concentration (tHb) (proxy markers of metabolic stress). Ten untrained participants had their legs randomized into both HL-RT and HL-BFR and underwent 10 weeks of training. Muscle cross-sectional area (mCSA) was measured at baseline and post training, while HHb and tHb during the final session. Using a threshold of 2 × typical errors (3.24%) to compare protocols, five participants showed greater mCSA increases after HL-RT (16.44 ± 7.90%) compared to HL-BFR (10.74 ± 7.12%, <i>p</i> = 0.0054) and five did not respond better to HL-RT (8.95 ± 10.83%) compared to HL-BFR (13.33 ± 8.59%) (<i>p</i> = 0.3105). Additionally, HL-RT induced lower HHb (5855.78 ± 12905.99; <i>p</i> = 0.0101) and tHb (-43169.70 ± 37793.17; <i>p</i> = 0.0030) AUC values compared to HL-BFR (HHb: 39254.80 ± 27020.15; tHb: 46309.40 ± 31613.97). In conclusion, despite the higher levels of metabolic stress markers, most participants did not present greater muscle hypertrophy by combining blood flow restriction with HL-RT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17066,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sports Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sports Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2024.2437588\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sports Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2024.2437588","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Individual muscle hypertrophy in high-load resistance training with and without blood flow restriction: A near-infrared spectroscopy approach.

We aimed to compare individual hypertrophic responses to high-load resistance training (HL-RT) or high-load with blood flow restriction (HL-BFR). Furthermore, we investigated whether greater responsiveness to one of the protocols could be explained by acute changes in blood deoxyhemoglobin concentration (HHb) and total hemoglobin concentration (tHb) (proxy markers of metabolic stress). Ten untrained participants had their legs randomized into both HL-RT and HL-BFR and underwent 10 weeks of training. Muscle cross-sectional area (mCSA) was measured at baseline and post training, while HHb and tHb during the final session. Using a threshold of 2 × typical errors (3.24%) to compare protocols, five participants showed greater mCSA increases after HL-RT (16.44 ± 7.90%) compared to HL-BFR (10.74 ± 7.12%, p = 0.0054) and five did not respond better to HL-RT (8.95 ± 10.83%) compared to HL-BFR (13.33 ± 8.59%) (p = 0.3105). Additionally, HL-RT induced lower HHb (5855.78 ± 12905.99; p = 0.0101) and tHb (-43169.70 ± 37793.17; p = 0.0030) AUC values compared to HL-BFR (HHb: 39254.80 ± 27020.15; tHb: 46309.40 ± 31613.97). In conclusion, despite the higher levels of metabolic stress markers, most participants did not present greater muscle hypertrophy by combining blood flow restriction with HL-RT.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Sports Sciences
Journal of Sports Sciences 社会科学-运动科学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
147
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sports Sciences has an international reputation for publishing articles of a high standard and is both Medline and Clarivate Analytics-listed. It publishes research on various aspects of the sports and exercise sciences, including anatomy, biochemistry, biomechanics, performance analysis, physiology, psychology, sports medicine and health, as well as coaching and talent identification, kinanthropometry and other interdisciplinary perspectives. The emphasis of the Journal is on the human sciences, broadly defined and applied to sport and exercise. Besides experimental work in human responses to exercise, the subjects covered will include human responses to technologies such as the design of sports equipment and playing facilities, research in training, selection, performance prediction or modification, and stress reduction or manifestation. Manuscripts considered for publication include those dealing with original investigations of exercise, validation of technological innovations in sport or comprehensive reviews of topics relevant to the scientific study of sport.
×
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