Blood-Flow Restricted Warm-Up Alters Muscle Hemodynamics and Oxygenation during Repeated Sprints in American Football Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Team-sport athletes and coaches use varied strategies to enhance repeated-sprint ability (RSA). Aside from physical training, a well-conducted warm-up enhances RSA via increased oxidative metabolism. Strategies that impede blood flow could potentiate the effects of a warm-up due to their effects on the endothelial and metabolic functions. This study investigated whether performing a warm-up combined with blood-flow restriction (WFR) induces ergogenic changes in blood volume, muscle oxygenation, and RSA. In a pair-matched, single-blind, pre-post parallel group design, 15 American football players completed an RSA test (12 × 20 m, 20 s rest), preceded by WFR or a regular warm-up (SHAM). Pressure was applied on the athletes’ upper thighs for ≈15 min using elastic bands. Both legs were wrapped at a perceived pressure of 7 and 3 out of 10 in WFR and SHAM, respectively. Changes in gastrocnemius muscle oxygen saturation (SmO2) and total hemoglobin concentration ([THb]) were monitored with near-infrared spectroscopy. Cohen’s effect sizes (ES) were used to estimate the impact of WFR. WFR did not clearly alter best sprint time (ES −0.25), average speed (ES 0.25), total time (ES −0.12), and percent decrement score (ES 0.39). While WFR did not meaningfully alter average SmO2 and [THb], the intervention clearly increased the maximum [THb] and the minimum and maximum SmO2 during some of the 12 sprint/recovery periods (ES 0.34–1.43). Results indicate that WFR positively alters skeletal muscle hemodynamics during an RSA test. These physiological changes did not improve short-term RSA, but could be beneficial to players during longer activities such as games.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".