MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393484934 · doi:10.1113/ep091753

The addition of blood flow restriction during resistance exercise does not increase prolonged low‐frequency force depression

2024· article· en· W4393484934 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher Pignanelli, Alexa A. Robertson, Steven M. Hirsch, Geoffrey A. Power, Jamie F. Burr

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Physiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineResistance trainingStimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract At a given exercise intensity, blood flow restriction (BFR) reduces the volume of exercise required to impair post‐exercise neuromuscular function. Compared to traditional exercise, the time course of recovery is less clear. After strenuous exercise, force output assessed with electrical muscle stimulation is impaired to a greater extent at low versus high stimulation frequencies, a condition known as prolonged low‐frequency force depression (PLFFD). It is unclear if BFR increases PLFFD after exercise. This study tested if BFR during exercise increases PLFFD and slows recovery of neuromuscular function compared to regular exercise. Fifteen physically active participants performed six low‐load sets of knee‐extensions across four conditions: resistance exercise to task failure (RETF), resistance exercise to task failure with BFR applied continuously (BFRCONT) or intermittently (BFRINT), and resistance exercise matched to the lowest exercise volume condition (REVM). Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) force output, voluntary activation and a force–frequency (1–100 Hz) curve were measured before and 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 24 h after exercise. Exercise to task failure caused similar reductions at 0 h for voluntary activation (RETF = 81.0 ± 14.2%, BFRINT = 80.9 ± 12.4% and BFRCONT = 78.6 ± 10.7%) and MVC force output (RETF = 482 ± 168 N, BFRINT = 432 ± 174 N, and BFRCONT = 443 ± 196 N), which recovered to baseline values between 4 and 24 h. PLFFD occurred only after RETF at 1 h supported by a higher frequency to evoke 50% of the force production at 100 Hz (1 h: 17.5 ± 4.4 vs. baseline: 15 ± 4.1 Hz, P = 0.0023), BFRINT (15.5 ± 4.0 Hz; P = 0.03), and REVM (14.9 ± 3.1 Hz; P = 0.002), with a trend versus BFRCONT (15.7 ± 3.5 Hz; P = 0.063). These findings indicate that, in physically active individuals, using BFR during exercise does not impair the recovery of neuromuscular function by 24 h post‐exercise.

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)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207