High-intensity Interval Training With Blood-flow Restriction Enhances Anaerobic Capacity In Endurance-trained Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood-flow restriction (BFR) training is becoming very popular among athletes and sport practitioners to enhance physiological adaptations and performance. However, the ergogenic impact of this modality combined with high-intensity training is still limited. PURPOSE: To examine the impact of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) with concurrent BFR on anaerobic and aerobic physical capacities and physiological responses. METHODS: In a pre-post, parallel-groups design, fifteen endurance-trained males (VO2max 66.2 ± 5.1 mL/min/kg) included three sessions of HIIT per week (sets of 15 s ON/15 s OFF at 100% maximal aerobic power) into their usual training for three weeks either with (BFR group, n = 10) or without restriction (CTL group, n = 8). In BFR, cuffs were worn proximal on both quadriceps and inflated progressively from 50 to 70% of arterial occlusion pressure across training weeks. Before and after training, athletes completed a maximal incremental step cycling test, a Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT) and a 5-km cycling time trial. Blood samples were drawn during the time trials. RESULTS: Maximal aerobic power increased in BFR (364.8 ± 60.7 vs 383.4 ± 61.4 watts, p = 0.003, Cohen’s effect size ES 0.27) but not in CTL (381.2 ± 62.1 vs 385.5 ± 64.4 watts, p = 0.45, ES 0.05). The mean power output developed during the WAnt also increased with BFR (23.8 ± 4.0 vs 24.6 ± 4.1 kJ, p = 0.08, ES 0.28) but not in CTL (23.4 ± 2.5 vs 23.4 ± 2.4 kJ, p = 0.95, ES 0.01). The VO2max did not change between groups (BFR: 0.86% vs CTL: 1.77%, ES -0.15), nor the mean power output (BFR: 1.81% vs CTL: 6.51%, ES -0.21) and completion time (BFR: -0.69% vs CTL: -2.55%, ES -0.21) of the 5-km time trial. During the time trial, BFR decreased blood pH (BFR: -0.05 vs CTL: -0.03 units, ES -0.43) and the potassium ion concentration (BFR: -0.55 vs CTL: 0.44 mmol/L, ES -0.63). There was no change in lactate production from pre- to post-training between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This data indicates that short-term HIIT combined with BFR improved anaerobic capacity in endurance-trained athletes without meaningful effect on cardiorespiratory fitness.
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 | 0.001 | 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".