Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
(Reference retrieved automatically from Web of Science through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

Effects of exercise intensity and occlusion pressure after 12 weeks of resistance training with blood-flow restriction

Full text
Author(s):
Lixandrao, Manoel E. [1] ; Ugrinowitsch, Carlos [1] ; Laurentino, Gilberto [1] ; Libardi, Cleiton A. [2] ; Aihara, Andre Y. [3] ; Cardoso, Fabiano N. [3] ; Tricoli, Valmor [1] ; Roschel, Hamilton [1]
Total Authors: 8
Affiliation:
[1] Univ Sao Paulo, Sch Phys Educ & Sport, BR-05508030 Sao Paulo, SP - Brazil
[2] Univ Fed Sao Carlos, Ctr Biol & Hlth Sci, Dept Phys Educ, BR-13560 Sao Carlos, SP - Brazil
[3] Diagnost Amer SA DASA, Sao Paulo - Brazil
Total Affiliations: 3
Document type: Journal article
Source: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY; v. 115, n. 12, p. 2471-2480, DEC 2015.
Web of Science Citations: 48
Abstract

Purpose We compared the effects of different protocols of blood-flow restriction training (BFRT) with different occlusion pressures and/or exercise intensities on muscle mass and strength. We also compared BFRT protocols with conventional high-intensity resistance training (RT). Methods Twenty-six subjects had each leg allocated to two of five protocols. BFRT protocols were performed at either 20 or 40 % 1-RM with either 40 or 80 % occlusion pressure: BFRT20/40, BFRT20/80, BFRT40/40, and BFRT40/80. Conventional RT was performed at 80 % 1-RM (RT80) without blood-flow restriction. Maximum dynamic strength (1-RM) and quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA) were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks. Results Regarding muscle mass, increasing occlusion pressure was effective only at very low intensity (BFRT20/40 0.78 % vs. BFRT20/80 3.22 %). No additional increase was observed at higher intensities (BFRT40/40 4.45 % vs. BFRT40/80 5.30 %), with no difference between the latter protocols and RT80 (5.90 %). Exercise intensity played a role in CSA when comparing groups with similar occlusion pressure. Muscle strength was similarly increased among BFRT groups (similar to 12.10 %) but to a lesser extent than RT80 (21.60 %). Conclusion In conclusion, BFRT protocols benefit from higher occlusion pressure (80 %) when exercising at very low intensities. Conversely, occlusion pressure seems secondary to exercise intensity in more intense (40 % 1-RM) BFRT protocols. Finally, when considering muscle strength, BFRT protocols seem less effective than high-intensity RT. (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