MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Resistance Training with and Without Blood Flow Restriction to Repetition Failure: More Pain, Same Gain

2019· article· en· W2955750287 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Pignanelli, Jamie F. Burr

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMuscle hypertrophyResistance trainingLeg pressMedicineBlood flow restrictionOne-repetition maximumStrength trainingBench pressLean body massPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCardiologyPhysical therapyInternal medicineBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence suggests blood flow restricted (BFR) resistance training performed with low-loads (20-40% 1-repetition maximum; 1-RM) is superior to low-load training when volume (load x repetitions) is matched. Since it has been shown using traditional resistance training that similar gains in muscle strength and hypertrophy occur between high- and low-load training when performed to repetition failure, it is of interest if this also occurs with low-load training with/without BFR. Moreover, the perception of pain at repetition failure between protocols and over time has not been examined in a training setting. PURPOSE: To determine if low-load resistance training to repetition failure with/without BFR elicits similar muscular strength, hypertrophy and perceived pain. METHODS: Seven young (25±1 yr) males were recruited to perform single-leg Smith-machine squats 3 d/wk for 6 wk. Each leg was randomly assigned to perform 30% 1-RM with (BFR) or without BFR (RT) for 3 sets to repetition failure with 100s of rest after each set. Tourniquet pressure was set at 60-70% of the lowest occlusive pressure and remained inflated throughout the 3 sets. Leg strength (1-RM), muscle hypertrophy (leg lean mass; LLM) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and ultrasound derived vastus lateralis (VL) muscle thickness (MT), were measured before and after the 6-weeks. A visual analog scale (1000 point) was used to assess pain after each set and rest period for the 1st, 4th, 8th, 11th and 15th training session. RESULTS: 1-RM increased similarly in both groups after training (BFR 79±13 to 95±13 kg vs. RT 82±13 to 100±13 kg, p<0.002) and VL MT (BFR: 2.69±0.08 to 2.98±0.1 vs. RT: 2.75±0.16 to 2.96±0.1 cm, p<0.016) with non-significant changes in LLM (BFR 7.29±0.38 to 7.40±0.39 vs. RT 7.28±0.37 to 7.34±0.36 kg, p<0.243). There was an increase in perceived pain with BFR training compared to the RT group across all sessions following the first rest period (BFR: 288±25 vs. RT: 155±9 a.u., p<0.05) and second rest period (BFR: 433±31 vs. RT:160±9 a.u., p<0.05). While there was a trend for a decrease in pain over time with repeated training, this effect was non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: When performed to failure, low-load training with and without BFR have similar muscle strength and hypertrophy despite differences in perceived pain. Supported by NSERC, CFI and ERA

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→