Comparison of the acute perceptual and blood pressure response to heavy load and light load blood flow restriction resistance exercise in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction patients and non-injured populations

Hughes, Luke; Paton, Bruce; Haddad, Fares S.; Rosenblatt, Benjamin; Gissane, Conor; Patterson, Stephen D.

doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2018.07.002

Cited by 42 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other populations included resistance‐trained adults, adults with musculoskeletal or soft tissue injuries, older adults, or adults with hypertension. There were far more studies (26 of 52) examining only male participants, 17,24,25,30,32‐38,41‐43,46,48,50‐59 compared with just 8 of 52 examining only female participants, 40,49,60‐65 leaving 18 studies examining both of these genders 8,19,20,39,44,45,47,66‐75 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sixteen of the 52 included studies applied multiple different cuff pressures as a means of comparing acute responses or chronic adaptations to different applied pressures 17,20,31,32,36,39,43,44,48,54,67,68,70,72,73,75 . Among the remaining 36 studies using a single individualized pressure for their application of BFR, 13 studies used 80% AOP/LOP, 24,37,40,49,50,57,61,62,64‐66,71,74 7 studies used 60% AOP/LOP, 8,33,34,38,46,52,56 5 studies used 50% AOP/LOP, 25,41,42,59,60 4 studies used 100% AOP, 47,51,58,63 4 studies used 40% AOP/LOP, 19,30,45,69 and 3 studies used 30% AOP 35,53,55 . The technique and postures used to determine each of these individualized restriction pressures was similarly variable.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The posture in which assessment of occlusion pressure was conducted was not reported in 15 of the 52 included studies 24,30,32,34,35,43,47,49,51,53,58,61‐63,74 . Among those reporting participant posture during assessment, supine 17,36,37,40,42,48,50,54,56,57,59,64,65 or standing 8,19,20,31,41,44,46,52,69,70,72,73,75 were each chosen in 13 studies, and sitting was used in 11 studies 25,33,38,39,45,55,60,66‐68,71 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 16 studies examining multiple cuff pressures, none provided clear justification for the selection of pressures they included. Among the 36 included studies that utilized a single individualized pressure when applying BFR, only 7 provided justifications of pressure used 19,41,46,53,55,66,71 . The remaining 29 either provided no reasoning for the pressure selection, or only cited the pressure having been used in a previous study.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The remaining 29 either provided no reasoning for the pressure selection, or only cited the pressure having been used in a previous study. The reasons provided for pressure selection included: to occlude venous flow during expected increased blood pressure 53 ; lower pressures reduce the risk of autonomic dysreflexia and deep vein thrombosis 53 ; pressures >30% AOP not being required to produce training adaptations or targeted increases in total muscle work 55 ; higher pressures maximize fast twitch fiber recruitment and strength adaptations to BFR training 66,71 ; the lowest pressure possible to minimize client discomfort but also provide a similar level of restriction to higher pressures 19,41,46 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Is there rationale for the cuff pressures prescribed for blood flow restriction exercise? A systematic review

Clarkson

May

Warmington

2020

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Blood flow restriction exercise has increasingly broad applications among healthy and clinical populations. Ensuring the technique is applied in a safe, controlled, and beneficial way for target populations is essential. Individualized cuff pressures are a favored method for achieving this. However, there remains marked inconsistency in how individualized cuff pressures are applied. Objectives To quantify the cuff pressures used in the broader blood flow restriction exercise literature, and determine whether there is clear justification for the choice of pressure prescribed. Methods Studies were included in this review from database searches if they employed an experimental design using original data, involved either acute or chronic exercise using blood flow restriction, and they assessed limb or arterial occlusion pressure to determine an individualized cuff pressure. Methodologies of the studies were evaluated using a bespoke quality assessment tool. Results Fifty‐one studies met the inclusion criteria. Individualized cuff pressures ranged from 30% to 100% arterial occlusion pressure. Only 7 out of 52 studies attempted to justify the individualized cuff pressure applied during exercise. The mean quality rating for all studies was 11.1 ± 1.2 out of 13. Conclusions The broader blood flow restriction exercise literature uses markedly heterogeneous prescription variables despite using individualized cuff pressures. This is problematic in the absence of any clear justification for the individualized cuff pressures selected. Systematically measuring and reporting all relevant acute responses and training adaptations to the full spectrum of BFR pressures alongside increased clarity around the methodology used during blood flow restriction exercise is paramount.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%