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

• Published in: European journal of applied physiology 2015-12, Vol.115 (12), p.2471-2480
• Main Authors: Lixandrão, Manoel E., Ugrinowitsch, Carlos, Laurentino, Gilberto, Libardi, Cleiton A., Aihara, André Y., Cardoso, Fabiano N., Tricoli, Valmor, Roschel, Hamilton
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedicine; Exercise intensity; Human Physiology; Humans; Male; Metabolism; Muscle Strength; Occupational Medicine/Industrial Medicine; Original Article; Physical education; Quadriceps Muscle - blood supply; Quadriceps Muscle - physiology; Regional Blood Flow; Resistance Training - adverse effects; Resistance Training - methods; Sports Medicine; Strength training
• ISSN: 1439-6319; 1439-6327
• DOI: 10.1007/s00421-015-3253-2

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 (~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.