Blood Flow Restriction Combined with Electrical Stimulation Attenuates Thigh Muscle Disuse Atrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) combined with electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) on skeletal muscle mass and strength during a period of limb disuse. METHODS: Thirty healthy participants (22 ± 3 yr; 23 ± 3 kg·m-2) were randomly assigned to control (CON; n = 10), BFR alone (BFR; n = 10), or BFR combined with EMS (BFR + EMS; n = 10). All participants completed unloading of a single leg for 14 d, with no treatment (CON), or while treated with either BFR or BFR + EMS (twice daily, 5 d·wk-1). BFR treatment involved arterial three cycles of 5-min occlusion using suprasystolic pressure, each separated by 5 min of reperfusion. EMS (6 s on, 15 s off; 200 μs; 60 Hz; 15% maximal voluntary contraction [MVC]) was applied continuously throughout the three BFR cycles. Quadriceps muscle mass (whole-thigh lean mass via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and vastus lateralis [VL] muscle thickness via ultrasound) and strength (via knee extension MVC) were assessed before and after the 14-d unloading period. RESULTS: After limb unloading, whole-thigh lean mass decreased in the control group (-4% ± 1%, P < 0.001) and BFR group (-3% ± 2%, P = 0.001), but not in the BFR + EMS group (-0.3% ± 3%, P = 0.8). VL muscle thickness decreased in the control group (-4% ± 4%, P = 0.005) and was trending toward a decrease in the BFR group (-8% ± 11%, P = 0.07) and increase in the BFR + EMS group (+5% ± 10%, P = 0.07). Knee extension MVC decreased over time (P < 0.005) in the control group (-18% ± 15%), BFR group (-10% ± 13%), and BFR + EMS group (-18% ± 15%), with no difference between groups (P > 0.5). CONCLUSION: Unlike BFR performed in isolation, BFR + EMS represents an effective interventional strategy to attenuate the loss of muscle mass during limb disuse, but it does not demonstrate preservation of strength.
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".