Muscular stress is equal when resistance exercise with blood flow restriction is matched in total work volume: A cross‐sectional, cross‐over study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim We compared muscular metabolic stress during exercise performed at multiple intensities, from very low to moderate, with blood flow restriction (BFR) adjusted by the same work volume. Methods Twenty‐five healthy young adults performed unilateral plantar flexion at 1 repetition/2 s in a magnetic resonance system. The BFR exercise protocols were as follows: (A) exercise with 10% of one repetition maximum (1‐RM) for 360 s, (B) 15% 1‐RM for 240 s, (C) 20% 1‐RM for 180 s, (D) 30% 1‐RM for 120 s, and (E) 40% 1‐RM for 90 s. All protocols had the same total work volume (load × repetitions = 1800). A high‐intensity protocol at 65% 1‐RM without BFR (60 s) was also performed for comparison. We used 31 P‐magnetic resonance spectroscopy to evaluate the muscular metabolic stress in the subjects' calf muscle, defined as decreases in phosphocreatine and intramuscular pH. Results The phosphocreatine depletion (A: 15.6 ± 0.7, B: 14.8 ± 0.8, C: 15.2 ± 0.6, D: 14.3 ± 0.6, E: 10.9 ± 0.5 mM; no significant difference [ns]) and the intramuscular pH decrease (A: 6.82 ± 0.02, B: 6.84 ± 0.01, C: 6.83 ± 0.02, D: 6.83 ± 0.02, E: 6.77 ± 0.02; ns) at the end of each exercise were similar and greater than those produced by the 65% 1‐RM without BFR. Conclusion If the total work volumes are equal, the metabolic stress in exercising muscle may reach similar levels at the end of exercise with BFR and could provide similar successful training effects.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".