Hemodynamic Responses to Resistance Exercise with Blood Flow Restriction Using a Practical Method Versus a Traditional Cuff-Inflation System

The aim of this study was to examine the potential differences in acute hemodynamic responses and muscular performance outcomes following resistance exercise between traditional blood flow restriction (TRA(BFR)) and a novel band tissue flossing method (BTF(BFR)). METHODS: Fifteen healthy young adults (23.27 ± 2.69 years) visited the lab for three sessions (≥72 h apart). Each session’s exercise consisted of three sets of 20 maximum-effort seated leg extensions and flexions with one of three conditions: control (CON), TRA(BFR) (50% limb occlusion pressure (LOP)), or BTF(BFR). During TRA(BFR) and BTF(BFR) sessions, occlusion was applied immediately prior to exercise and removed immediately after. Heart rate was collected prior to exercise, after onset of occlusion, immediately after exercise, and one-minute after removal of occlusion. Ultrasonography was performed prior to, and at least 30 s after, occlusion. RESULTS: BTF(BFR) caused greater reductions in arterial distance (14.28%, p = 0.010) and arterial area (28.43%, p = 0.020) than TRA(BFR). BTF(BFR) was able to significantly reduce arterial flow below pre-occlusion values, while TRA(BFR) did not. Both conditions caused significant elevations in heart rate following occlusion (TRA(BFR): +4.67 bpm, p = 0.046 and BTF(BFR): +6.07 bpm, p = 0.034), immediately post-exercise (TRA(BFR): +56.93 bpm, p < 0.001 and BTF(BFR): +52.79 bpm, p < 0.001) and one-minute post-exercise (TRA(BFR): +15.71, p = 0.003 and BTF(BFR): +14.57, p < 0.001). Only BTF(BFR) caused significant reductions in performance as measured by average power per repetition. CONCLUSIONS: BTF(BFR) causes a more exaggerated decrease in arterial blood flow as well as muscular power when compared to traditional TRA(BFR) at 50% of LOP.