Effect Of Handgrip Training With Blood Flow Restriction On Resting Blood Flow And Vascular Resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle adaptations (changes in muscle size and strength) with low-intensity exercise paired with blood flow restriction are known to increase to a greater extent than the same exercise without the restriction. However, changes in vasculature associated with the exercise protocol is not fully understood. In addition, some have hypothesized that repeated bouts of blood flow restriction might be detrimental to vascular health and function. PURPOSE: To evaluate changes in resting forearm blood flow following low intensity handgrip training with and without blood flow restriction. We also compared this to high intensity handgrip training. METHODS: 179 participants (18-35 years) completed this 6-week study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions: high-intensity (HI; n = 47; maximum voluntary contraction (100% MVC); 5 sec/set; 4 sets/session), low-intensity (LI; n = 47; 30% MVC; 2 min/set, 4 sets/session), low-intensity with blood flow restriction (LI-BFR; n = 41; 30% MVC, 50% arterial occlusion pressure [AOP]; 2 min/set, 4 sets/session), or non-exercise control (CON; n = 44). Participants came in for 3 visits/week (excluding CON) to perform the exercise with their dominant arm under their assigned condition. Before and after the training period, each participant had their resting limb blood flow measured in their dominant forearm. Changes in resting limb blood flow were compared using a Bayesian ANCOVA. The pre-value served as the covariate. Changes are noted as means (SD). RESULTS: The ANCOVA found no evidence for changes in resting forearm blood flow (BF10: 0.06). Pre-post changes in blood flow were 0.08 (0.98), 0.26 (0.67), 0.34 (0.96), and 0.03 (0.76) ml·min-1·100 ml-1 for the CON, LI, LI-BFR, and HI groups, respectively. There were also no changes when mean arterial pressure was divided by blood flow and represented as forearm vascular resistance (BF10: 0.08). Pre-post changes in forearm vascular resistance were 0.04 (14), -2.9 (12.9), -5.4 (18) and -2.7 (14) mmHg per flow for the CON, LI, LI-BFR, and HI groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Low intensity exercise with BFR did not impede or improve blood flow. The beneficial effects to vascular health may only be observed with higher pressures not used in this study (e.g. 80% AOP). This requires further study.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".