Effects of different occlusion pressure and exercise intensities protocols in the morphological and functional adaptations to a strength training program.

Author(s)

Manoel Emílio Lixandrão

• Document type: Master's Dissertation
• Press: São Paulo.
• Institution: Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Escola de Educação Física e Esportes (EEFE/BT)
• Defense date: 2015-06-15

Examining board members

Hamilton Augusto Roschel da Silva; Renato Barroso da Silva; Carlos Ugrinowitsch

• Advisor: Hamilton Augusto Roschel da Silva

Abstract

The present study aimed to investigate on the effects of different occlusion pressures and/or exercise intensities resistance training associated with partial blood flow restriction (RT-BFR) on muscle mass [quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA)] and maximal dynamic muscle strength (one repetition maximum [1-RM]). A secondary purpose was to compare the RT-BFR protocols with a standard RT recommendation (i.e., conventional high-intensity training at 80% 1RM). Twenty-six men engaged in a twice a week training period for 12 week. Each subject\'s leg was randomly allocated to two of the five resistance training (RT) protocols in a balanced-way according to quadriceps CSA and dominance: RT-BFR20/40: 20% 1-RM, 40% occlusion pressure; RT-BFR20/80: 20% 1-RM, 80% occlusion pressure; RT-BFR40/40: 40% 1-RM, 40% occlusion pressure; RT-BFR40/80: 40% 1-RM, 80% occlusion pressure and RT80: 80% 1-RM (without blood flow restriction). Quadriceps CSA and muscle strength were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks of intervention. The main results showed that RT-BFR 20/40 and 20/80 showed lower increases in CSA as compared to RT80 (confidence intervals of effect size [ESCIdiff]: -4.04 to -1.55, and -2.49 to -0.58, respectively). The RT-BFR 40/40 and 40/80 groups had similar hypertrophy to the RT80 (ESCIdiff: -1.63 to 0.31, and -1.11 to 0.68, respectively). The comparison between the RT-BFR groups (occlusion pressure effect) demonstrated greater increases in quadriceps CSA for RT-BFR 20/80 as compared to RT-BFR 20/40 (ESCIdiff: 0.74 to 2.54). No difference was observed between RT-BFR 40/40 and 40/80 (ESCIdiff: -0.57 to 1.29). The analyzes of the effects of exercise intensity demonstrated that RT-BFR 40/40 and 40/80 presented greater increases in CSA than RT-BFR 20/40 and the 20/80 groups, respectively (ESCIdiff: 0.84 to 3.08, and 0.17 to 1.90, respectively). Regarding 1-RM, all of the RT-BFR protocols approached a lower training effect as compared to RT80 (ESCIdiff: RT-BRF20/40: -1.98 to -0.098; RT-BRF20/80: -0.80 to 0.07; RT-BRF40/40: -0.85 to 0.15; and RT-BRF40/80: -0.89 to 0.06). All the RT-BFR groups showed similar increases in 1-RM (ESCIdiff: 20/40 vs. 20/80: -0.5 to 1.07; 20/40 vs. 40/40: -0.68 to 1.14; 20/80 vs. 40/80: -0.79 to 0.82; and 40/40 vs. 40/80: -0.87 to 0.98). In summary, RT-BFR protocols performed with very-low exercise intensity (i.e., 20% 1-RM) may benefit from higher levels of occlusion pressure (i.e., 80% occlusion pressure) when attempting to improve muscle mass; although, the hypertrophic responses seems to be lower as compared to conventional RT. Conversely, occlusion pressures seems secondary to RT-BFR protocols using higher exercise intensities (e.g., ~ 40% 1-RM). For muscle strength (i.e.,1-RM), all of the RT-BFR protocols tested seem to be less effective as compared to conventional high-intensity RT, despite the different combinations of occlusion pressure and exercise intensities (AU)

• FAPESP's process: 14/05320-6 - DOSE-RESPONSE OF OCCLUSION PRESSURE AND EXERCISE INTENSITY IN MORPHOLOGICAL AND NEURAL ADAPTATION IN A STRENGTH TRAINING PROTOCOL
• Grantee: Manoel Emílio Lixandrão
• Support Opportunities: Scholarships in Brazil - Master