Acute physiological and perceptual responses to three blood flow restricted interval exercise protocols: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood flow restriction (BFR) may enhance the acute training stimulus of exercise. This study examined acute physiological and perceptual responses to three lower-limb BFR + interval exercise protocols. Twenty-four club/university male athletes (age 25 ± 3.5, V̇O2max 47.0 ± 5.5 mL∙kg∙min– 1) completed four experimental conditions in a randomised crossover manner: (i) high-intensity control (HI) – 100% maximal aerobic power (Wmax); (ii) high-intensity recovery occlusion (HIRO) – 100% Wmax, 80% limb occlusion pressure (LOP) during rest; (iii) moderate-intensity low occlusion (MILO) – 70% Wmax, 50% LOP during exercise; and (iv) moderate-intensity high occlusion (MIHO) – 70% Wmax, 80% LOP during exercise. All interval exercise protocols were three sets of five × 30 s cycling, 30 s unloaded active recovery with 3 min seated rest between sets. During recovery, HIRO condition indicated lower tissue saturation index, higher deoxyhaemoglobin, oxyhaemoglobin and total haemoglobin levels than other conditions (all p < 0.05). HIRO exhibited significantly higher heart rate (HR) from set 2 and blood lactate (bLa) at 5 min post-exercise than other conditions (all p < 0.05). Higher vastus lateralis muscle activity was exhibited on the last exercise repetition of HIRO than HI ( p < 0.05). MIHO elicited significantly higher deoxygenation, lower muscle activation but similar HR and bLa than HI during exercise; and higher perceived pain and exertion than other conditions (all p < 0.05). Applying BFR during rest between high-intensity interval exercise sets increases physiological stresses without affecting exercise intensity or perceptual responses; applying BFR during moderate-intensity exercise may increase both physiological and perceptual responses beyond those of high-intensity exercise. Study registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05835544)
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".