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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bartolomei, Sandro, Montesanto, Pasquale, Lanzoni, Ivan Malagoli, Gatta, Giorgio, Cortesi, Matteo, Fantozzi, Silvia
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