Cargando…
A Comparison between High and Low Cuff Pressures on Muscle Oxygen Saturation and Recovery Responses Following Blood-Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise
The aim of the study was to compare the recovery response and muscle oxygenation of a blood-flow restriction resistance exercise (BFR) session with high [HP: 80% of the arterial occlusion pressure (AOP)] and low cuff pressure (LP: 40% of AOP). Both exercise sessions included 4 sets to failure at the...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9739770/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36501840 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22239138 |
_version_ | 1784847890750898176 |
---|---|
author | Bartolomei, Sandro Montesanto, Pasquale Lanzoni, Ivan Malagoli Gatta, Giorgio Cortesi, Matteo Fantozzi, Silvia |
author_facet | Bartolomei, Sandro Montesanto, Pasquale Lanzoni, Ivan Malagoli Gatta, Giorgio Cortesi, Matteo Fantozzi, Silvia |
author_sort | Bartolomei, Sandro |
collection | PubMed |
description | The aim of the study was to compare the recovery response and muscle oxygenation of a blood-flow restriction resistance exercise (BFR) session with high [HP: 80% of the arterial occlusion pressure (AOP)] and low cuff pressure (LP: 40% of AOP). Both exercise sessions included 4 sets to failure at the barbell preacher curl exercise. Twelve resistance trained men (27.4 ± 5.0 years; 83.5 ± 11.6 kg; 176.6 ± 7.0 cm) performed each protocol in a counterbalanced, randomized order. Maximal isometric force, muscle morphology and muscle soreness of the biceps brachii muscle were assessed at baseline, 15-min, 60-min and 24-h post each testing session. In addition, muscle oxygen saturation (SmO(2)) was assessed during each training session. A lower number of repetitions (p = 0.013) was detected in HP compared to LP. A lower SmO(2) (p < 0.001) was detected in the recovery time between the sets in HP (mean: 47.6 ± 15.7%) compared to LP (mean: 68.9 ± 7.2%). No differences between the two trials (p > 0.05) were noted for isometric force, muscle architecture and soreness at any timepoint. Results indicate that, despite a high cuff pressure may induce a more hypoxic condition compared to a lower cuff pressure, recovery responses may not be affected. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9739770 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97397702022-12-11 A Comparison between High and Low Cuff Pressures on Muscle Oxygen Saturation and Recovery Responses Following Blood-Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise Bartolomei, Sandro Montesanto, Pasquale Lanzoni, Ivan Malagoli Gatta, Giorgio Cortesi, Matteo Fantozzi, Silvia Sensors (Basel) Article The aim of the study was to compare the recovery response and muscle oxygenation of a blood-flow restriction resistance exercise (BFR) session with high [HP: 80% of the arterial occlusion pressure (AOP)] and low cuff pressure (LP: 40% of AOP). Both exercise sessions included 4 sets to failure at the barbell preacher curl exercise. Twelve resistance trained men (27.4 ± 5.0 years; 83.5 ± 11.6 kg; 176.6 ± 7.0 cm) performed each protocol in a counterbalanced, randomized order. Maximal isometric force, muscle morphology and muscle soreness of the biceps brachii muscle were assessed at baseline, 15-min, 60-min and 24-h post each testing session. In addition, muscle oxygen saturation (SmO(2)) was assessed during each training session. A lower number of repetitions (p = 0.013) was detected in HP compared to LP. A lower SmO(2) (p < 0.001) was detected in the recovery time between the sets in HP (mean: 47.6 ± 15.7%) compared to LP (mean: 68.9 ± 7.2%). No differences between the two trials (p > 0.05) were noted for isometric force, muscle architecture and soreness at any timepoint. Results indicate that, despite a high cuff pressure may induce a more hypoxic condition compared to a lower cuff pressure, recovery responses may not be affected. MDPI 2022-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9739770/ /pubmed/36501840 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22239138 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Bartolomei, Sandro Montesanto, Pasquale Lanzoni, Ivan Malagoli Gatta, Giorgio Cortesi, Matteo Fantozzi, Silvia A Comparison between High and Low Cuff Pressures on Muscle Oxygen Saturation and Recovery Responses Following Blood-Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise |
title | A Comparison between High and Low Cuff Pressures on Muscle Oxygen Saturation and Recovery Responses Following Blood-Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise |
title_full | A Comparison between High and Low Cuff Pressures on Muscle Oxygen Saturation and Recovery Responses Following Blood-Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise |
title_fullStr | A Comparison between High and Low Cuff Pressures on Muscle Oxygen Saturation and Recovery Responses Following Blood-Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison between High and Low Cuff Pressures on Muscle Oxygen Saturation and Recovery Responses Following Blood-Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise |
title_short | A Comparison between High and Low Cuff Pressures on Muscle Oxygen Saturation and Recovery Responses Following Blood-Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise |
title_sort | comparison between high and low cuff pressures on muscle oxygen saturation and recovery responses following blood-flow restriction resistance exercise |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9739770/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36501840 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22239138 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bartolomeisandro acomparisonbetweenhighandlowcuffpressuresonmuscleoxygensaturationandrecoveryresponsesfollowingbloodflowrestrictionresistanceexercise AT montesantopasquale acomparisonbetweenhighandlowcuffpressuresonmuscleoxygensaturationandrecoveryresponsesfollowingbloodflowrestrictionresistanceexercise AT lanzoniivanmalagoli acomparisonbetweenhighandlowcuffpressuresonmuscleoxygensaturationandrecoveryresponsesfollowingbloodflowrestrictionresistanceexercise AT gattagiorgio acomparisonbetweenhighandlowcuffpressuresonmuscleoxygensaturationandrecoveryresponsesfollowingbloodflowrestrictionresistanceexercise AT cortesimatteo acomparisonbetweenhighandlowcuffpressuresonmuscleoxygensaturationandrecoveryresponsesfollowingbloodflowrestrictionresistanceexercise AT fantozzisilvia acomparisonbetweenhighandlowcuffpressuresonmuscleoxygensaturationandrecoveryresponsesfollowingbloodflowrestrictionresistanceexercise AT bartolomeisandro comparisonbetweenhighandlowcuffpressuresonmuscleoxygensaturationandrecoveryresponsesfollowingbloodflowrestrictionresistanceexercise AT montesantopasquale comparisonbetweenhighandlowcuffpressuresonmuscleoxygensaturationandrecoveryresponsesfollowingbloodflowrestrictionresistanceexercise AT lanzoniivanmalagoli comparisonbetweenhighandlowcuffpressuresonmuscleoxygensaturationandrecoveryresponsesfollowingbloodflowrestrictionresistanceexercise AT gattagiorgio comparisonbetweenhighandlowcuffpressuresonmuscleoxygensaturationandrecoveryresponsesfollowingbloodflowrestrictionresistanceexercise AT cortesimatteo comparisonbetweenhighandlowcuffpressuresonmuscleoxygensaturationandrecoveryresponsesfollowingbloodflowrestrictionresistanceexercise AT fantozzisilvia comparisonbetweenhighandlowcuffpressuresonmuscleoxygensaturationandrecoveryresponsesfollowingbloodflowrestrictionresistanceexercise |