The effect of muscle blood flow restriction on hemodynamics, cerebral oxygenation and activation at rest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested the hypothesis that muscle blood flow restriction reduces muscle and cerebral oxygenation at rest. In 26 healthy males, aged 33 ± 2 yrs, physiological variables were continuously recorded during a 10-min period in 2 experimental conditions: a) with muscle blood flow restriction through thigh cuffs application inflated at 120 mm Hg (With Cuffs, WC) and b) without restriction (No Cuffs, NC). Muscle and cerebral oxygenation were reduced by muscle blood flow restriction as suggested by the increase in both muscle and cerebral deoxygenated hemoglobin (Δ[HHb]; p < 0.01) and the decrease of muscle and cerebral oxygenation index (Δ[HbDiff]; p < 0.01). Hemodynamic responses were not affected by such muscle blood flow restriction, whereas baroreflex sensitivity was reduced (p = 0.009). The perception of leg discomfort was higher (p < 0.001) in the WC than in the NC condition. This study suggests that thigh cuffs application inflated at 120 mm Hg is an effective method to reduce muscle oxygenation at rest. These changes at the muscular level seem to be sensed by the central nervous system, evoking alterations in cerebral oxygenation and baroreflex sensitivity. Novelty: Thigh cuffs application inflated at 120 mm Hg effectively reduces muscle oxygenation at rest. Limiting muscle oxygenation appears to reduce cerebral oxygenation, and baroreflex sensitivity, at rest. Even in healthy subjects, limiting muscle oxygenation, at rest, affects neural integration.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".