MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The Effect Of Blood-Flow Restriction On Muscle Function During A Single Bout Of Explosive Training

2022· article· en· W4294817149 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Antonio Squillante, Bailey McLagan, E. Todd Schroeder

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBench pressBlood flow restrictionJumpingJumpMedicineConcentricVertical jumpStatistical significanceResistance trainingMathematicsPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCardiologyInternal medicinePhysicsPhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intro: There is evidence to support the use of blood-flow restriction (BFR) in combination with resistance training to promote a positive change in muscle strength and power among healthy individuals. However, no study has yet to report the effect of BFR-induced fatigue on muscle function during short bouts of explosive effort. PURPOSE: To compare muscle function during a single bout of explosive training under two different conditions: with BFR and without BFR (control). METHODS: 15 participants (age 25.33 ± 3.08, height 175.36 ± 8.19 cm, body mass 79.90 ± 10.26 kg) performed a 30-second consecutive countermovement jump test under two different conditions in randomized order. Under the BFR condition, cuff pressure was set to 80% arterial occlusion pressure of the lower limb at rest (Delfi Medical, Vancouver, Canada). Participants performed a series of repeated countermovement jumps (CMJ) for 30 seconds on force plates sampling at 1000 Hz (VALD Performance, Newstead, Australia). Muscle performance was assessed by measuring jumping height. RESULTS: Statistical analyses were performed using a two-tailed paired t-test to assess differences between jump height at different time intervals: 0-5 seconds (t1,), 15-20 seconds (t2), and 25-30 seconds (t3). Alpha level was set at p = 0.05. For each time interval, the average jump height was calculated. At baseline (t1), no significant difference emerged between conditions (6.4%; p = 0.094; p < 0.05). No significant difference in the overall decline in muscle function was measured between conditions at t2 (p = 0.385; p < 0.05) and t3 (p = 0.103; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: When compared to the control group, the use of BFR did not result in a more appreciable decline in muscle function during a single bout of explosive training lasting 30 seconds or less. These findings suggest no apparent negative effect of BFR on muscle function during short bouts of anaerobic training.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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