Perceptual responses: Clinical versus practical blood flow restriction resistance exercise

• Published in: Physiology & behavior Vol. 227; p. 113137
• Main Authors: Miller, Ryan M., Galletti, Bianca A.R., Koziol, Karolina J., Freitas, Eduardo D.S., Heishman, Aaron D., Black, Christopher D., Larson, Daniel J., Bemben, Debra A., Bemben, Michael G.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Inc 01.12.2020
• Subjects: Discomfort; Kaatsu; Pain; Perceived exertion; RPE; Sex differences; Sex differences; Perceived exertion; Pain; Discomfort; Kaatsu; RPE
• ISSN: 0031-9384; 1873-507X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.113137

•Practical blood flow restriction exercise may provide a more favorable exercise condition when compared to clinical blood flow restriction exercise.•High intensity and clinical blood flow restriction induce greater perceptual responses than low intensity or practical blood flow restriction exercise. The purpose of the current investigation was to compare the acute perceptual responses during low-load resistance exercise (RE) with clinical blood flow restriction (cBFR-RE) and practical blood flow restriction (pBFR-RE), and during conventional low- (LL-RE) and high-load resistance exercise (HL-RE), to determine if these responses differed between young males and females. Twenty-nine participants (14 males: 23.6±2.7years, 25.3±3.1kg/m2 and 15 females: 20.3±1.6years, 23.4±1.9kg/m2) completed the following exercise conditions in a randomized design: 1) cBFR-RE, 2) pBFR-RE, 3) HL-RE, and 4) LL-RE. Low-load conditions consisted of 30-15-15-15 repetitions of two-leg press (LP) and knee extension (KE) exercises with 30% one-repetition maximum (1-RM), and HL-RE consisted of 3 sets of 10 repetitions at 80% 1-RM, all with 60s rest intervals. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and discomfort were assessed before exercise and immediately following each set. RPE was significantly higher in HL-RE compared to all low-load conditions for both exercises after each set (all p<0.05). cBFR-RE resulted in significantly greater RPE than pBFR-RE and LL-RE for both exercises for sets 1-4 for LP and sets 2-3 for KE (all p<0.05). Levels of discomfort were similar between cBFR-RE and HL-RE, which tended to be significantly higher than pBFR-RE and LL-RE (p<0.05). Men reported significantly greater RPE than women following sets 2-4 during KE with cBFR-RE and sets 2 and 3 during KE for HL-RE (all p<0.05). Males also reported significantly greater discomfort than women following sets 2-4 for KE LL-RE (p<0.05). Altogether, these data suggest that pBFR-RE may provide a more favorable BFR condition based on perceptual responses and that perceptual responses may differ between sexes across varying resistance exercise conditions.