Acute Responses of Low-Load Resistance Exercise with Blood Flow Restriction

Abstract

Blood flow restriction (BFR) is a popular resistance exercise technique purported to increase metabolic stress and augment training adaptations over time. However, short-term use may lead to acute neuromuscular fatigue and higher exertion ratings. Objective: The purpose of the current study was to examine acute physiological responses to low-load resistance exercise utilizing BFR compared to higher-load, non-BFR resistance exercise. Methods: Recreationally trained males (n = 6) and females (n = 7) (mean ± standard deviation, age: 20 ± 1 yrs.; height: 172 ± 8 cm; weight: 73 ± 11 kg; BMI: 24.4 ± 2.2 kg·m−2; training experience: 4 ± 2 yrs.) had limb occlusion pressure determined (50%; right leg: 118 ± 11 mmHg; left leg: 121 ± 13 mmHg) using an automated, self-inflating cuff system during baseline testing. In subsequent sessions, using a randomized, cross-over design, participants completed one of two experimental conditions: (1) Low-load + BFR and (2) High load + non-BFR. In both conditions, participants completed one set of back squats at either 30% (BFR) or 60% (non-BFR) of an estimated 1RM for a max of 30 repetitions, followed by three additional sets with the same loads and a target of 15 repetitions per set. Blood lactate and countermovement jump (CMJ) height were measured pre- and post-back squat. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were assessed following each set. Results: When collapsed across all sets, participants completed significantly more total repetitions in the BFR condition compared to non-BFR (75.0 ± 0.0 vs. 68.23 ± 9.27 reps; p = 0.015; ES: 1.03), but a lower training load volume (2380 ± 728 vs. 4756 ± 1538 kg; p < 0.001; ES: 1.97). There was a significant time-by-condition interaction (p < 0.001), with a greater increase in blood lactate occurring from baseline to post-back squat in the non-BFR condition (11.61 mmol/L, 95%CI: 9.93, 13.28 mmol/L) compared to BFR (5.98 mmol/L, 95%CI: 4.30, 7.65 mmol/L). There was another significant time-by-condition interaction (p = 0.043), with a greater reduction in CMJ occurring in the non-BFR condition (−6.01, 95%CI: −9.14, −2.88 cm; p < 0.001) compared to BFR (−1.50, 95%CI: −1.50, 4.51 cm; p = 0.312). Conclusions: Utilizing a low-load BFR protocol may allow for a higher training volume, yet lower metabolic stress and reduce neuromuscular fatigue compared to lifting at a higher load without the use of BFR.