Muscular adaptations after two different volumes of blood flow‐restricted training

Abstract

This study aimed to gain an insight into the adaptations of muscle strength and skeletal muscle thickness after two different volumes of blood flow restriction training (BFRT), and compare them with high-intensity training. The sample was divided into four groups: low-volume, low-intensity BFRT (BFRT LV); high-volume, low-intensity BFRT (BFRT HV); traditional high-intensity resistance training (HIT); and a control group, which maintained their routine activities (CON). Leg extension one repetition maximum (1RM), isokinetic peak knee extension, and flexion torques at 60°/s and 180°/s as well as muscle thickness of the rectus femoris (RF) and vastus lateralis (VL) were assessed at baseline and after 5 weeks of training BFRT LV (7.03%, P < 0.05), BFRT HV (6.24%, P < 0.05) and HIT (18.86%, P < 0.001) groups increased 1RM performance, while no changes were observed in the CON group. Muscle thickness of the RF and VL was increased irrespective of the training group (7.5%, P < 0.001; and 9.9%, P < 0.001, respectively). We conclude that doubling the exercise volume with BFRT causes no further benefit with muscular size or strength. Although similar increases in muscle thickness were observed between training groups, HIT increased 1RM performance to a greater extent compared to either volume of BFRT.

Low-load resistance training promotes muscular adaptation regardless of vascular occlusion, load, or volume

“…Although a high number of sets and repetitions have been used in LLRT Burd et al 2010bBurd et al , 2012Mitchell et al 2012;Abe et al 2012;Martin-Hernandez et al 2013;Wernbom et al 2013), Martín-Hernández et al (2013) recently showed that doubling the OC volume from four to eight sets resulted in no further benefit in muscle size or strength. The possibility of a volume threshold has been suggested in which additional volume provides no further benefits for both traditional resistance training (Gonzalez-Badillo et al 2006) and OC (Martin-Hernandez et al 2013).…”

“…It has been evidenced that a single set (high-load) protocol stimulates myofibrillar protein synthesis (Burd et al 2010a), hypertrophy, and muscular strength (ACSM 2009). However, there is no available information concerning a lower threshold below the three sets of LI-BRF or NOC that could be enough to induce significant muscular adaptations (Martin-Hernandez et al 2013).…”

“…Understanding the relationship between the acute variables of training (load and amount of exercise) and skeletal muscle adaptation is important for creating efficient protocols (ACSM 2009;Martin-Hernandez et al 2013;Loenneke et al 2012). However, little is known regarding the effects of acute variables of LLRT on muscle mass and strength.…”

Exercise with Blood Flow Restriction: An Updated Evidence-Based Approach for Enhanced Muscular Development

“…performing the protocol twice) had no additive effect on these adaptive responses [71]. This indicates that there may be a volume threshold over which further increases are not advantageous for muscular development.…”

Periodization: What is it good for?

“…We suggest that the proposed superiority in strength with periodized programs are often times explained by the principle of specificity. [28][29][30] For example, the studies that found linear periodization superior to a non-periodized program is likely due to the greater intensity (i.e. training at a higher % 1RM) performed at the end of the program which closely mimics the 1RM test that is used to assess strength (Table 1).…”