Acute Muscular, Metabolic, Cardiovascular, and Perceptual Responses to Low Cuff Pressure-small Cuff Width Blood Flow Restricted Exercise PrescriptionKyle J Hackney*, Ben M Olson, Austin J Schmidt, Ashlyn H Nelson and Evan L Zacharias
Muscle, Metabolism and Ergogenics Laboratory, Department of Health, Nutrition, and Exercise Sciences, College of Human Development and Education, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, USA
- Corresponding Author:
- Kyle J Hackney
Ph.D, CSCS, CISSN, Assistant Professor
Department of Health, Nutrition, and Exercise Sciences
College of Human Development and Education
North Dakota State University, 1 Bentson Bunker Fieldhouse
Department, 2620, P.O. Box 6050, Fargo, North Dakota
E-mail: [email protected]
Received Date: May 18, 2016; Accepted Date: June 11, 2016; Published Date: June 18, 2016
Citation: Hackney KJ, Olson BM, Schmidt AJ, Nelson AH, Zacharias EL (2016) Acute Muscular, Metabolic, Cardiovascular, and Perceptual Responses to Low Cuff Pressure-small Cuff Width Blood Flow Restricted Exercise Prescription. J Nov Physiother 6:299. doi: 10.4172/2165-7025.1000299
Copyright: © 2016 Hackney KJ, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Low-load blood flow restricted (BFR) exercise represents a novel method of rehabilitative exercise, however, little is known about variables that may influence the acute physiological response to BFR exercise prescription. This study explored the muscular, metabolic, cardiovascular, and perceptual responses to acute blood flow restricted exercise and compared it to traditional exercise using a Biodex dynamometer. Fourteen resistance trained, male participants (age: 22.1 ± 3.3 years; height: 177.8 ± 6.4 cm; body mass: 85.8 ± 11.9 kg) were randomized to complete 4 sets of isotonic knee extension-flexion resistance exercise under two conditions: 1) control; and 2) BFR exercise. Both control and BFR exercise used training loads of 20% of maximal voluntary contraction, however, control had free limb blood flow and BFR exercise was implemented using a 5 cm external cuff around the proximal thigh inflated to 140 mmHg. Muscle cross-sectional area (an index of muscle swelling) was significantly increased from baseline by 11.3% and 12.4% in control and BFR, respectively (p = 0.001). Similarly compared to baseline, lactate (control = 6.1 ± 1.3; BFR = 5.9 ± 0.9 mmol; p < 0.001), heart rate (control = 140.1 ± 18.8; BFR = 144.2 ± 12.6 bt Ã¢ÂÂ min-1; p < 0.001), RPE (control = 5.8 ± 2.8; BFR = 6.3 ± 2.4 arbitrary units; p < 0.001), and pain (control = 6.71 ± 18.4; BFR = 16.8 ± 29.2 mm; p = 0.003) significantly increased, however no differences could be detected between exercise types. Low cuff pressure-small cuff width BFR exercise does not result greater muscular swelling or alter metabolic, cardiovascular, or perceptual responses relative to low-intensity exercise alone. If rapid strength and mass gains can be achieved using low cuff pressure-small cuff width BFR methods it represents an intriguing rehabilitation strategy for disuse, injury, and some muscular disease treatments with less concern for patient safety.