Acute Effects of Continuous and Intermittent Blood Flow Restriction on Sprint Interval Performance and Muscle Oxygen Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Wizenberg, AM, Gonzalez-Rojas, D, Rivera, PM, Proppe, CE, Laurel, KP, Stout, JR, Fukuda, DH, Billaut, F, Keller, JL, and Hill, EC. Acute effects of continuous and intermittent blood flow restriction on sprint interval performance and muscle oxygen responses. J Strength Cond Res 37(10): e546-e554, 2023-This investigation aimed to examine the acute effects of continuous and intermittent blood flow restriction (CBFR and IBFR, respectively) during sprint interval training (SIT) on muscle oxygenation, sprint performance, and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE). Fifteen men (22.6 ± 2.4 years; 176 ± 6.3 cm; 80.0 ± 12.6 kg) completed in random order a SIT session with CBFR, IBFR (applied during rest), and no blood flow restriction (NoBFR). Each SIT session consisted of two 30-second all-out sprint tests separated by 2 minutes. Peak power (PP), total work (TW), sprint decrement score (S dec ), RPE, and muscle oxygenation were measured during each sprint. A p value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. PP decreased to a greater extent from sprint 1 to sprint 2 during CBFR (25.5 ± 11.9%) and IBFR (23.4 ± 9.3%) compared with NoBFR (13.4 ± 8.6%). TW was reduced similarly (17,835.6 ± 966.2 to 12,687.2 ± 675.2 J) from sprint 1 to sprint 2 for all 3 conditions, but TW was lower (collapsed across time) for CBFR (14,320.7 ± 769.1 J) than IBFR (15,548.0 ± 840.5 J) and NoBFR (15,915.4 ± 771.5 J). There were no differences in S dec (84.3 ± 1.7%, 86.1 ± 1.5%, and 87.2 ± 1.1% for CBFR, IBFR, and NoBFR, respectively) or RPE, which increased from sprint 1 (8.5 ± 0.3) to sprint 2 (9.7 ± 0.1). Collective muscle oxygenation responses increased across time and were similar among conditions, whereas increases in deoxy[heme] and total[heme] were greatest for CBFR. Applying BFR during SIT induced greater decrements in PP, and CBFR resulted in greater decrements in work across repeated sprints. The larger increases in deoxy[heme] and total[heme] for CBFR suggested it may induce greater metabolite accumulation than IBFR and NoBFR when combined with SIT.
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) | 0.002 | 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".