Dataset Information

Myoelectric Activity and Fatigue in Low-Load Resistance Exercise With Different Pressure of Blood Flow Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background: Low-load resistance exercise (LL-RE) with blood flow restriction (BFR) promotes increased metabolic response and fatigue, as well as more pronounced myoelectric activity than traditional LL-RE. Some studies have shown that the relative pressure applied during exercise may have an effect on these variables, but existing evidence is contradictory. Purpose: The aim of this study was to systematically review and pool the available evidence on the differences in neuromuscular and metabolic responses at LL-RE with different pressure of BFR. Methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis was reported according to PRISMA items. Searches were performed in the following databases: CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science, until June 15, 2021. Randomized or non-randomized experimental studies that analyzed LL-RE, associated with at least two relative BFR pressures [arterial occlusion pressure (AOP)%], on myoelectric activity, fatigue, or metabolic responses were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for MVC torque (fatigue measure) and myoelectric activity. The quality of evidence was assessed using the PEDro scale. Results: Ten studies were included, all of moderate to high methodological quality. For MVC torque, there were no differences in the comparisons between exercise with 40-50% vs. 80-90% AOP. When analyzing the meta-analysis data, the results indicated differences in comparisons in exercise with 15-20% 1 repetition maximum (1RM), with higher restriction pressure evoking greater MVC torque decline (4 interventions, 73 participants; MD = -5.05 Nm [95%CI = -8.09; -2.01], p = 0.001, I ² = 0%). For myoelectric activity, meta-analyses indicated a difference between exercise with 40% vs. 60% AOP (3 interventions, 38 participants; SMD = 0.47 [95%CI = 0.02; 0.93], p = 0.04, I² = 0%), with higher pressure of restriction causing greater myoelectric activity. This result was not identified in the comparisons between 40% vs. 80% AOP. In analysis of studies that adopted pre-defined repetition schemes, differences were found (4 interventions, 52 participants; SMD = 0.58 [95%CI = 0.11; 1.05], p = 0.02, I ² = 27%). Conclusion: The BFR pressure applied during the LL-RE may affect the magnitude of muscle fatigue and excitability when loads between 15 and 20% of 1RM and predefined repetition protocols (not failure) are prescribed, respectively. Systematic Review Registration: [http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42021229345].

SUBMITTER: de Queiros VS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8646757 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of lower limb low-load blood flow restriction training (LL-BFRT) with high-load strength training (HL-ST) as part of an outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programme on leg strength in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).MethodsParticipants were randomised to LL-BFRT or HL-ST (24 sessions). LL-BFRT was done at 30% 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) with 70% arterial occlusion pressure. HL-ST was done at 70% 1-RM. Primary outcome was isometric strength of knee extensors and flexors. Secondary outcomes were 1-RM, functional exercise capacity, physical activity, symptom burden and health-related quality of life. Perceptions of dyspnoea and leg fatigue were recorded after every exercise. We compared groups with t-tests.ResultsWe included 30 participants (13 women, 17 men, 64 (9) years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s 47 (18)% pred.), 24 completed the study. Isometric knee extensor strength improved to a clinically relevant degree in both legs in both groups (LL-BFRT: right leg 9 (20) Nm, left leg 10 (18) Nm; HL-ST: right leg 15 (26) Nm, left leg 16 (30) Nm, data are mean (SD)), without statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group differences (right leg mean difference= -6.4, 95% CI= -13.20 to 25.92 Nm, left leg mean difference= -5.6, 95% CI= -15.44 to 26.55 Nm). 1 min sit-to-stand test performance improved to a clinically relevant degree only in the LL-BFRT group (4 (4) vs 1 (5) repetitions). Interestingly, physical activity improved to a clinically relevant degree only in the LL-BFRT group (1506 (2441) vs -182 (1971) steps/day). LL-BFRT lowered perceived in-exercise dyspnoea and increased leg fatigue compared with HL-ST in the initial 12 trainings.ConclusionIn patients with stable COPD undergoing outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation, LL-BFRT was not superior to HL-ST in improving leg strength. LL-BFRT led to similar strength gains as HL-ST while reducing perceptions of dyspnoea in the initial training phase.Trial registration numberNCT04151771.

Project description:IntroductionSarcopenic obesity (SO) is characterised by decreased muscle mass, diminished muscle strength and/or reduced physical performance and a high percentage of body fat (PBF). Conventional-load resistance exercise (CRE) may be difficult for older people with SO owing to their declining physical functions. Low-load resistance exercise (LRE) combined with blood flow restriction (BFR; LRE-BFR) is a viable alternative to CRE for improving muscle mass and strength and potential exercise mode for managing SO. This study has two objectives: (1) to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of CRE and LRE-BFR in improving body composition, muscle strength, physical performance, haematological parameters, cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors and quality of life and (2) to compare the efficacy of CRE and LRE-BFR and explore their potential mechanisms.Methods and analysisThis work is a 12-week assessor-blinded randomised clinical trial that will be conducted thrice a week. Sarcopenia will be defined using the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019, and obesity will be determined using the criteria developed by the World Health Organization. Community-dwelling older people aged ≥ 65 years will be screened as the participants using inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 33 participants will be randomised into a CRE group (n = 11), an LRE-BFR group (n = 11) and a control group that will be given only health education (n = 11). The primary outcomes will be knee extensor strength and PBF, and the secondary outcomes will be body composition, anthropometric measurements, muscle strength of upper limbs, physical performance, haematological parameters, CVD risk factors and quality of life. The outcomes will be measured at the baseline (week 0), end of the intervention (week 12) and follow up (week 24). All the collected data will be analysed following the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and disseminationThe Ethics Research Committee has approved this study (approval No. CMEC-2022-KT-51). Changes or developments in this study will be reported at www.chictr.org.cn .Trial registrationChiCTR2300067296 (3 January 2023).

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of blood flow restriction training (BFR) in elderly with knee osteoarthritis (OA) is comparable to performing high-intensity protocols (70 to 80% of 1 RM [repetition maximum]) that are known to be effective for improving the muscle strength of knee extensors, with the advantage of generating less particular rating of perceived exertion and pain immediately after training. However, despite being a promising alternative, little is known about the best way to apply the BFR, such as level of pressure and combination or not with other therapeutic modalities. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether different levels of blood flow restriction with low load (BFR + LL) and no load (BFR + rest) are non-inferior to high-intensity resistance exercise (HIRE+BFRplacebo) for pain reduction in patients with knee OA.Methods/designThis clinical trial is a non-inferiority, five-arm, randomized, active-controlled, single trial which will be carried out in 165 patients of both sexes with knee OA, aged 50 years and older. Participants will be randomly allocated into 5 exercise groups (40% of BFR + LL; 80% of BFR + LL; 40% of BFR + rest; 80% BFR + rest, and HIRE+BFR placebo). A mixed linear model will be used to examine the effect of group-by-time interaction on pain intensity on the WOMAC subscale (primary outcome) and on disease severity, physical functional data, balance data, quality of life, global perceived effect scale, and muscle strength (secondary outcomes). Participants will be analyzed for intention-to-treat, and the statistical assessor blinded to the groups. The collection of outcomes 72 h after completion of the 16 weeks of interventions will be the primary measurement point. Follow-up secondary timepoints will be collected at 20, 28, 40, 52, and 64 weeks after the end of interventions, except for pain during the training, which will be measured immediately at the end of each session. Only the comparison of the primary outcome between the HIRE group with each BFR group will be analyzed in the non-inferiority framework, the other comparisons between the BFR groups for the primary outcome, and all secondary outcomes will be interpreted in the superiority framework.DiscussionThe results of this clinical trial can point out more clearly to ways to optimize the BFR training with the minimum of pain immediately after training, which will allow the offer of an effective and more adherent strengthening training to patients with knee OA.Trial registrationRegistro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos, RBR-93rx9q . Registered on 23 July 2020. Version 1.0.

Project description:PURPOSE:Combining blood flow restriction (BFR) with exercise can stimulate skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Recent observations in an animal model suggest that BFR performed without exercise can also induce anabolic effects. We assessed the effect of BFR performed both with and without low-load resistance-type exercise (LLRE) on in vivo myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in young men. METHODS:Twenty healthy young men (age = 24 ± 1 yr, body mass index = 22.9 ± 0.6 kg·m) were randomly assigned to remain in resting condition (REST ± BFR; n = 10) or to perform LLRE (LLRE ± BFR at 20% one-repetition maximum; n = 10), combined with two 5-min cycles of single leg BFR. Myofibrillar protein synthesis rates were assessed during a 5-h post-BFR period by combining a primed continuous L-[ring-C6]phenylalanine infusion with the collection of blood samples, and muscle biopsies from the BFR leg and the contralateral control leg. The phosphorylation status of anabolic signaling (mammalian target of rapamycin pathway) and metabolic stress (acetyl-CoA carboxylase)-related proteins, as well as the mRNA expression of genes associated with skeletal muscle mass regulation, was assessed in the collected muscle samples. RESULTS:Under resting conditions, no differences in anabolic signaling or myofibrillar protein synthesis rates were observed between REST + BFR and REST (0.044% ± 0.004% vs 0.043% ± 0.004% per hour, respectively; P = 0.683). By contrast, LLRE + BFR increased myofibrillar protein synthesis rates by 10% ± 5% compared with LLRE (0.048% ± 0.005% vs 0.043% ± 0.004% per hour, respectively; P = 0.042). Furthermore, compared with LLRE, LLRE + BFR showed higher phosphorylation status of acetyl-CoA carboxylase and 4E-BP1 as well as the elevated mRNA expression of MuRF1 (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION:BFR does not increase myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in healthy young men under resting conditions. When combined with LLRE, BFR increases postexercise myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in vivo in humans.

Dataset Information

Myoelectric Activity and Fatigue in Low-Load Resistance Exercise With Different Pressure of Blood Flow Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets