Resistance training with interval blood flow restriction effectively enhances intramuscular metabolic stress with less ischemic duration and discomfort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increases in muscle size and strength similar to those obtained with high resistance load can be achieved by combining lower loads with continuous blood flow restriction (BFR). However, high ratings for distress have been reported for continuous BFR. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy (metabolic stress) of BFR applied only during intervals in resistance exercise. Seven healthy men performed three 1-min sets of plantar flexion (30 reps/min) with 1-min rest intervals under 4 conditions: low-load resistance exercise (L, 20% 1-repetition maximum (1RM)) without BFR (L-noBFR), L with BFR during exercise sets (L-exBFR), L with BFR during rest intervals (L-intBFR), and L with continuous BFR during both exercise and rest intervals (L-conBFR). Based on the results of the first experiment, we performed additional protocols using a moderate load (M, 40% 1RM) with intermittent (exercise or rest intervals) BFR (M-exBFR and M-intBFR). Intramuscular metabolic stress, defined as decreases in phosphocreatine and intramuscular pH, was evaluated by 31 P magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Rated perceived exertion (RPE) was also assessed. At the end of exercise, total decreases in phosphocreatine and intramuscular pH were similar among L-noBFR, L-intBFR, and L-exBFR and significantly less than those in L-conBFR (p < 0.05). In contrast, changes in these variables in M-intBFR but not in M-exBFR were similar to those in L-conBFR. Nevertheless, RPE was lower in M-intBFR than in both M-exBFR and L-conBFR (p < 0.05). The effect of intermittent BFR during exercise might be insufficient to induce metabolic stress when using a low load. However, effective metabolic stress for muscle adaptation could be obtained by moderate-load resistance exercise with BFR during intervals with less ischemic duration and discomfort.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".