Contralateral training effects of low-intensity blood-flow restricted and high-intensity unilateral resistance training

Mendonça, Gonçalo V.; Vila‐Chã, Carolina; Teodósio, Carolina; Gonçalves, André D.; Freitas, Sandro R.; Mil‐Homens, Pedro; Pezarat‐Correia, Pedro

doi:10.1007/s00421-021-04708-2

Cited by 13 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Kato et al [ 29 ] stimulated the median nerve for 70 s (pulse width of 400 μs, frequency of 20 Hz) to elicit a wrist flexion of 10% MVC force and observed contralateral facilitation of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation evoked spinal reflexes in thigh muscles ( vastus medialis and biceps femoris ) but not in the soleus . Mendonca et al [ 30 ] failed to report a change in the contralateral MVC force of the plantar flexors after four weeks of unilateral resistance training; interestingly they also observed unchanged Hmax/Mmax and V/Msup ratios in the soleus . Altogether, these studies provide additional evidence for the higher susceptibility of knee extensors vs. plantar flexors to contralateral facilitation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute Effects of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation on Contralateral Plantar Flexor Neuromuscular Function

Donnelly

Popesco²,

Rossé³

et al. 2022

Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contralateral facilitation, i.e., the increase in contralateral maximal voluntary strength that is observed when neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is applied to the ipsilateral homonymous muscle, has previously been reported for the knee extensors but the neurophysiological mechanisms remain to be investigated. The aim of this study was to compare plantar flexor contralateral facilitation between a submaximal voluntary contraction (~10% MVC torque) and two evoked contractions (conventional and wide-pulse high-frequency NMES) of the ipsilateral plantar flexors, with respect to a resting condition. Contralateral MVC torque and voluntary activation level were measured in 22 healthy participants while the ipsilateral plantar flexors were at rest, voluntarily contracted or stimulated for 15 s. Additional neurophysiological parameters (soleus H-reflex and V-wave amplitude and tibialis anterior coactivation level) were quantified in a subgroup of 12 participants. Conventional and wide-pulse high-frequency NMES of the ipsilateral plantar flexors did not induce any contralateral facilitation of maximal voluntary strength and activation with respect to the resting condition. Similarly, no alteration of neurophysiological parameters was observed in the different conditions. This absence of contralateral facilitation contrasts with some results previously obtained on the knee extensors but is consistent with the absence of neurophysiological changes on the contralateral soleus.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute Effects of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation on Contralateral Plantar Flexor Neuromuscular Function

Donnelly

Popesco²,

Rossé³

et al. 2022

Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Number of protocols ≥100 (Max 150) 9 (Laurentino et al, 2008;Manimmanakorn et al, 2013;Cook et al, 2017;Biazon et al, 2019;de Lemos Muller et al, 2019) 80 10 (Laurentino et al, 2012;Lixandrão et al, 2015;Jessee et al, 2018;de Lemos Muller et al, 2019;Neto et al, 2019) 70 1 (Ruaro et al, 2019) 60 11 (May et al, 2018;Brandner et al, 2019;Gavanda et al, 2020;Mendonca et al, 2021) 50 9 (Fahs et al, 2015;Vechin et al, 2015;Kim et al, 2017;Bemben et al, 2019;Centner et al, 2019) 40-45 7 (Lixandrão et al, 2015;Jessee et al, 2018;Letieri et al, 2018;Hill et al, 2020) and non-BFR. BFR subjects in this study (Laurentino et al, 2008)however trained using a standard moderate repetition protocol rather than the higher repetition lower intensity protocol.…”

Section: %Lop Appliedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Leg extension/ quadricep extension 20 (Laurentino et al, 2008(Laurentino et al, , 2012Manimmanakorn et al, 2013;Fahs et al, 2015;Cook et al, 2017;Jessee et al, 2018;Letieri et al, 2018;May et al, 2018;Bemben et al, 2019;Biazon et al, 2019;Brandner et al, 2019;de Lemos Muller et al, 2019;Mendonca et al, 2021) Elbow flexion/ bicep curl 7 (Kim et al, 2017;May et al, 2018;Bemben et al, 2019;Brandner et al, 2019;de Lemos Muller et al, 2019;Neto et al, 2019;Hill et al, 2020) Leg flexion/ hamstring curl 5 (Cook et al, 2017;Letieri et al, 2018;May et al, 2018;Bemben et al, 2019) Squat/leg press 4 (Vechin et al, 2015;Cook et al, 2017;Bemben et al, 2019;Brandner et al, 2019) Bench press/chest press 3 (Bemben et al, 2019;Brandner et al, 2019;Neto et al, 2019) Calf raise 3 (Brandner et al, 2019;Gavanda et al, 2020;Mendonca et al, 2021) Lateral pulldown/ front Pulldown 2 (Bemben et al, 2019;Neto et al, 2019) Elbow extension/ tricep extension 1 (Neto et al, 2019) Seated row 1 (Brandner et al, 2019) Wrist flexion/ grip strength 1 (Ruaro et al, 2019) greater improvements in the non-BFR group in exercises where the primary muscle was too proximal su...…”

Section: Exercise Choice Number Of Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Laurentino et al, 2008;Lixandrão et al, 2015;Biazon et al, 2019) 50-60 3(Laurentino et al, 2008;Cook et al, 2017;May et al, 2018) 40 2(Cook et al, 2017;Ruaro et al, 2019) 30 20(Fahs et al, 2015;Cook et al, 2017;Kim et al, 2017;Letieri et al, 2018;May et al, 2018;Bemben et al, 2019;de Lemos Muller et al, 2019;Gavanda et al, 2020;Hill et al, 2020) 15-20 20(Laurentino et al, 2012;Manimmanakorn et al, 2013;Lixandrão et al, 2015;Jessee et al, 2018;Brandner et al, 2019;Neto et al, 2019;Clarkson et al, 2020;Mendonca et al, 2021) …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is There a Minimum Effective Dose for Vascular Occlusion During Blood Flow Restriction Training?

Das¹,

Paton²

2022

Front. Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundBlood flow restriction (BFR) training at lower exercise intensities has a range of applications, allowing subjects to achieve strength and hypertrophy gains matching those training at high intensity. However, there is no clear consensus on the percentage of limb occlusion pressure [%LOP, expressed as a % of the pressure required to occlude systolic blood pressure (SBP)] and percentage of one repetition max weight (%1RM) required to achieve these results. This review aims to explore what the optimal and minimal combination of LOP and 1RM is for significant results using BFR.MethodA literature search using PubMed, Scopus, Wiley Online, Springer Link, and relevant citations from review papers was performed, and articles assessed for suitability. Original studies using BFR with a resistance training exercise intervention, who chose a set %LOP and %1RM and compared to a non-BFR control were included in this review.ResultTwenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. %LOP ranged from 40 to 150%. %1RM used ranged from 15 to 80%. Training at 1RM ≤20%, or ≥ 80% did not produce significant strength results compared to controls. Applying %LOP of ≤50% and ≥ 80% did not produce significant strength improvement compared to controls. This may be due to a mechanism mediated by lactate accumulation, which is facilitated by increased training volume and a moderate exercise intensity.ConclusionTraining at a minimum of 30 %1RM with BFR is required for strength gains matching non-BFR high intensity training. Moderate intensity training (40–60%1RM) with BFR may produce results exceeding non-BFR high intensity however the literature is sparse. A %LOP of 50–80% is optimal for BFR training.

show abstract

“…Several studies explored the effect of detraining on RFD, but their findings varied (4,13,17,25,27,31,32). For example, in the seminal study by Ha ¨kkinen et al (17), minimal changes in the RFD were observed after 12 weeks of training cessation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resistance Training–Induced Gains in Rate of Force Development Are Maintained During Training Cessation: A Meta-Analysis

Grgić

Grgic

2022

Strength &Amp; Conditioning Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present meta-analysis examined the effects of resistance training on increasing the rate of force development (RFD), followed by exploring the changes in RFD occurring during training cessation. Five databases were searched to find eligible studies. Their methodological quality was evaluated using the Downs and Black checklist. The data were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. Seven studies with 11 training groups were included in the meta-analysis. All studies were classified as being of good or moderate quality. Resistance training increased RFD (d: 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.09–0.38). There was no significant difference in RFD between the postintervention and postdetraining periods (d: −0.02; 95% CI: −0.10–0.06). In subgroup meta-analyses, there was no significant difference (all p > 0.05) between the postintervention and postdetraining RFD when categorized according to detraining duration (up to 4 weeks versus 7–16 weeks) or participants' training status (untrained versus trained). This meta-analysis demonstrated that resistance training effectively increases RFD. More importantly, the results also indicated that gains in RFD are maintained after detraining. Thus, unlike a few other resistance training–induced adaptations (e.g., increases in muscular strength and muscular endurance), it seems that gains in RFD are preserved during a detraining phase.

show abstract

Contralateral training effects of low-intensity blood-flow restricted and high-intensity unilateral resistance training

Cited by 13 publications

References 64 publications

Acute Effects of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation on Contralateral Plantar Flexor Neuromuscular Function

Acute Effects of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation on Contralateral Plantar Flexor Neuromuscular Function

Is There a Minimum Effective Dose for Vascular Occlusion During Blood Flow Restriction Training?

Resistance Training–Induced Gains in Rate of Force Development Are Maintained During Training Cessation: A Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About