Darío Rodrigo-Mallorca, Joaquín Mollá-Sanchis, Iván Chulvi-Medrano, Luis M Franco-Grau
{"title":"叠加血流限制对等速膝关节伸展的影响。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
目的:评价无BFR与叠加BFR应用时膝关节伸肌等速同心力矩及弯矩-速度曲线的变化。方法:37例体力活动成人[33.73(10.96)岁;11名女性]进行了三组等速同心膝关节伸展,每组包括三种角速度(300°/s, 210°/s和120°/s);BIODEX测力计)。分别在最大压闭塞(MPO)的40% (BFR40)和80% (BFR80)时随机应用BFR,而不使用BFR (BFR0)。结果:BFR状态与角速度的交互作用无显著性差异(p < 0.05);300°/s时,Nm为109.78±32.90比71.24±11.18,Nm为116.68±27.29比74.40±15.11,Nm为113.91±28.43比72.95±13.76;137.60±35.27 Nm vs. 88.85±15.23 Nm, 135.40±33.04 Nm vs. 86.32±17.38 Nm, 132.68±31.99 Nm vs. 85.39±16.25 Nm, 210°/s;在120°/s下,BFR0、BFR40和BFR80分别为177.62±41.40 vs. 114.72±20.10、166.40±45.39 vs. 198.14±21.80和162.60±40.10 vs. 109.09±18.90 Nm。性别之间的互动存在显著差异。结论:在等速膝关节伸展时,在40% MPO和80% MPO时叠加应用BFR不会导致产生最大力矩或力量的能力发生任何急性变化。使用BFR可能不会产生足以引起力量产生急剧变化的人体产生效应。
Effects of Superimposed Blood Flow Restriction on Isokinetic Knee Extension.
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.