A Moderate Blood Flow Restriction Pressure Does Not Affect Maximal Strength or Neuromuscular Responses

• Published in: Journal of strength and conditioning research
• Main Authors: Lubiak, Sean M, Lawson, John E, Gonzalez Rojas, David H, Proppe, Christopher E, Rivera, Paola M, Hammer, Shane M, Trevino, Michael A, Dinyer-McNeely, Taylor K, Montgomery, Jr, Tony R, Olmos, Alex A, Sears, Kylie N, Bergstrom, Haley C, Succi, Pasquale J, Keller, Joshua L, Hill, Ethan C
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 14.08.2024
• ISSN: 1064-8011; 1533-4287
• DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004907

Lubiak, SM, Lawson, JE, Gonzalez Rojas, DH, Proppe, CE, Rivera, PM, Hammer, SM, Trevino, MA, Dinyer-McNeely, TK, Montgomery, TR, Olmos, AA, Sears, KN, Bergstrom, HC, Succi, PJ, Keller, JL, and Hill, EC. A moderate blood flow restriction pressure does not affect maximal strength or neuromuscular responses. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2024-The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) applied at 60% of total arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) on maximal strength. Eleven college-aged female subjects completed two testing sessions of maximal unilateral concentric, isometric, and eccentric leg extension muscle actions performed with and without BFR. Separate 3 (mode [isometric, concentric, eccentric]) × 2 (condition [BFR, no BFR]) × 2 (visit [2, 3]) repeated-measures analysis of variances were used to examine mean differences in maximal strength, neuromuscular function, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and pain. For maximal strength (collapsed across condition and visit), isometric (128.5 ± 22.7 Nm) and eccentric (114.5 ± 35.4 Nm) strength were greater than concentric maximal strength (89.3 ± 22.3 Nm) (p < 0.001-0.041). Muscle excitation relative (%) to isometric non-BFR was greater during the concentric (108.6 ± 31.5%) than during the eccentric (86.7 ± 29.2%) (p = 0.045) assessments but not different than isometric (93.4 ± 17.9%) (p = 0.109) assessments, collapsed across condition and visit. For RPE, there was an interaction such that RPE was greater during non-BFR (4.3 ± 1.7) than during BFR (3.7 ± 1.7) (p = 0.031) during the maximal concentric strength assessments. Furthermore, during maximal strength assessments performed with BFR, isometric RPE (5.8 ± 1.9) was greater than concentric (3.7 ± 1.7) (p = 0.005) and eccentric (4.6 ± 1.9) (p = 0.009) RPE. Finally, pain was greater during the isometric (2.8 ± 2.1 au) than during the concentric (1.8 ± 1.5 au) (p = 0.016), but not eccentric, maximal strength assessments (2.1 ± 1.6 au) (p = 0.126), collapsed across condition and visit. The application of BFR at 60% AOP did not affect concentric, isometric, or eccentric maximal strength or neuromuscular function. Trainers, clinicians, and researchers can prescribe exercise interventions relative to a restricted (when using a moderate AOP) or nonrestricted assessment of maximal strength.