限制血流的亚最大低负荷阻力运动与低负荷运动产生类似的结果,导致肌肉大小和力量的失败,但耐力却没有。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PHYSIOLOGY
Ryo Kataoka, William B Hammert, Yujiro Yamada, Robert W Sallberg, Anna Kang, Jun Seob Song, Witalo Kassiano, Emily E Metcalf, Jeremy P Loenneke
{"title":"限制血流的亚最大低负荷阻力运动与低负荷运动产生类似的结果,导致肌肉大小和力量的失败,但耐力却没有。","authors":"Ryo Kataoka, William B Hammert, Yujiro Yamada, Robert W Sallberg, Anna Kang, Jun Seob Song, Witalo Kassiano, Emily E Metcalf, Jeremy P Loenneke","doi":"10.1007/s00421-025-05949-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To examine the effects of submaximal low-load resistance exercise with and without blood flow restriction (BFR) on muscle size, strength, cross-education of strength, and muscular endurance with BFR compared to low-load exercise to failure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>144 participants were randomly assigned to: (1) submaximal low-load exercise (LL, n = 37), (2) submaximal low-load exercise with BFR (LL + BFR, n = 35), (3) low-load exercise to failure (LL-Failure, n = 36), and (4) non-exercise control (CON, n = 36). Training consisted of 2 sets of 30% 1RM elbow flexion exercise, performed 3 days/week for 6 weeks. Repetitions performed by the submaximal groups were based on the muscular endurance test with BFR during pre-testing (70% of maximal BFR repetitions in week 1 and 95% in week 6).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LL + BFR led to greater increases in muscle thickness (0.14 cm) compared to LL (0.06 cm), and was comparable to LL-Failure (0.17 cm). 1RM strength gains were greater in LL (0.45 kg), LL + BFR (0.54 kg), and LL-Failure (0.34 kg) compared to CON (-0.36 kg), with no differences between training groups. There was no evidence of cross-education of strength. Changes in muscular endurance with BFR were greatest in LL-Failure (16.5 reps), followed by LL + BFR (10.0 reps), LL (4.2 reps), and CON (-0.03 reps).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The effectiveness of BFR during submaximal exercise may depend on the specific adaptation targeted. Submaximal BFR produced muscle growth comparable to failure training. Neither BFR nor proximity to failure was necessary to maximize strength gains. Muscular endurance with BFR increased in all training groups, but improved the most with failure training.</p>","PeriodicalId":12005,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Applied Physiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Submaximal low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction produces similar results to low-load exercise to failure for muscle size and strength, but not endurance.\",\"authors\":\"Ryo Kataoka, William B Hammert, Yujiro Yamada, Robert W Sallberg, Anna Kang, Jun Seob Song, Witalo Kassiano, Emily E Metcalf, Jeremy P Loenneke\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00421-025-05949-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To examine the effects of submaximal low-load resistance exercise with and without blood flow restriction (BFR) on muscle size, strength, cross-education of strength, and muscular endurance with BFR compared to low-load exercise to failure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>144 participants were randomly assigned to: (1) submaximal low-load exercise (LL, n = 37), (2) submaximal low-load exercise with BFR (LL + BFR, n = 35), (3) low-load exercise to failure (LL-Failure, n = 36), and (4) non-exercise control (CON, n = 36). Training consisted of 2 sets of 30% 1RM elbow flexion exercise, performed 3 days/week for 6 weeks. Repetitions performed by the submaximal groups were based on the muscular endurance test with BFR during pre-testing (70% of maximal BFR repetitions in week 1 and 95% in week 6).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LL + BFR led to greater increases in muscle thickness (0.14 cm) compared to LL (0.06 cm), and was comparable to LL-Failure (0.17 cm). 1RM strength gains were greater in LL (0.45 kg), LL + BFR (0.54 kg), and LL-Failure (0.34 kg) compared to CON (-0.36 kg), with no differences between training groups. There was no evidence of cross-education of strength. Changes in muscular endurance with BFR were greatest in LL-Failure (16.5 reps), followed by LL + BFR (10.0 reps), LL (4.2 reps), and CON (-0.03 reps).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The effectiveness of BFR during submaximal exercise may depend on the specific adaptation targeted. Submaximal BFR produced muscle growth comparable to failure training. Neither BFR nor proximity to failure was necessary to maximize strength gains. Muscular endurance with BFR increased in all training groups, but improved the most with failure training.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12005,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Applied Physiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Applied Physiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-025-05949-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Applied Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-025-05949-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:研究与低负荷运动相比,有和没有血流量限制(BFR)的亚最大低负荷阻力运动对肌肉大小、力量、力量交叉教育和肌肉耐力的影响。方法:144名参与者随机分为:(1)次大负荷低负荷运动(LL, n = 37),(2)次大负荷低负荷运动加BFR (LL + BFR, n = 35),(3)低负荷运动至失败(LL-失败,n = 36),(4)非运动对照组(CON, n = 36)。训练包括2组30% 1RM肘关节屈曲练习,每周3天,持续6周。次最大组的重复训练以预测时的BFR肌肉耐力测试为基础(第1周70%的最大BFR重复训练,第6周95%的最大BFR重复训练)。结果:LL + BFR组肌肉厚度(0.14 cm)比LL组(0.06 cm)增加更多,与LL- failure组(0.17 cm)相当。与CON (-0.36 kg)相比,LL (0.45 kg), LL + BFR (0.54 kg)和LL- failure (0.34 kg)组的1RM力量增加更大,训练组之间没有差异。没有证据表明存在力量的交叉教育。肌肉耐力与BFR的变化在LL- failure(16.5次)中最大,其次是LL + BFR(10.0次),LL(4.2次)和CON(-0.03次)。结论:BFR在亚极限运动中的有效性可能取决于所针对的特定适应。亚极限BFR产生的肌肉增长与失败训练相当。无论是BFR还是接近失败都不是最大强度增益所必需的。肌肉耐力在所有训练组中均有提高,但在失败训练中提高最多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Submaximal low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction produces similar results to low-load exercise to failure for muscle size and strength, but not endurance.

Purpose: To examine the effects of submaximal low-load resistance exercise with and without blood flow restriction (BFR) on muscle size, strength, cross-education of strength, and muscular endurance with BFR compared to low-load exercise to failure.

Methods: 144 participants were randomly assigned to: (1) submaximal low-load exercise (LL, n = 37), (2) submaximal low-load exercise with BFR (LL + BFR, n = 35), (3) low-load exercise to failure (LL-Failure, n = 36), and (4) non-exercise control (CON, n = 36). Training consisted of 2 sets of 30% 1RM elbow flexion exercise, performed 3 days/week for 6 weeks. Repetitions performed by the submaximal groups were based on the muscular endurance test with BFR during pre-testing (70% of maximal BFR repetitions in week 1 and 95% in week 6).

Results: LL + BFR led to greater increases in muscle thickness (0.14 cm) compared to LL (0.06 cm), and was comparable to LL-Failure (0.17 cm). 1RM strength gains were greater in LL (0.45 kg), LL + BFR (0.54 kg), and LL-Failure (0.34 kg) compared to CON (-0.36 kg), with no differences between training groups. There was no evidence of cross-education of strength. Changes in muscular endurance with BFR were greatest in LL-Failure (16.5 reps), followed by LL + BFR (10.0 reps), LL (4.2 reps), and CON (-0.03 reps).

Conclusion: The effectiveness of BFR during submaximal exercise may depend on the specific adaptation targeted. Submaximal BFR produced muscle growth comparable to failure training. Neither BFR nor proximity to failure was necessary to maximize strength gains. Muscular endurance with BFR increased in all training groups, but improved the most with failure training.

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
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
227
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Applied Physiology (EJAP) aims to promote mechanistic advances in human integrative and translational physiology. Physiology is viewed broadly, having overlapping context with related disciplines such as biomechanics, biochemistry, endocrinology, ergonomics, immunology, motor control, and nutrition. EJAP welcomes studies dealing with physical exercise, training and performance. Studies addressing physiological mechanisms are preferred over descriptive studies. Papers dealing with animal models or pathophysiological conditions are not excluded from consideration, but must be clearly relevant to human physiology.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信