Blood flow restriction exercise during microgravity exposure in parabolic flight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This case report evaluates whether it is possible to perform blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise during exposure to microgravity. The objectives were three‐fold: (1) to determine if a personalised tourniquet system (PTS) hardware technology performs nominally and enables BFR exercise in microgravity; (2) to determine if BFR augments the exercise stimulus in microgravity in a similar manner to its application on Earth; and (3) to evaluate tolerance and acceptability of performing BFR exercise and operating the PTS hardware in microgravity. Two participants performed resistance squat and deadlift exercises on a flywheel device (inertia of 0.01 kg m 2 ) with and without BFR during microgravity in parabolic flight onboard the National Research Council's Falcon 20 aircraft. Heart rate, perceived exertion and discomfort, and the participants’ tolerance and acceptability of performing BFR exercise in microgravity compared to exercise without BFR were measured. Performance of the PTS hardware technology was also evaluated. This case report demonstrates, for the first time, that it is possible to perform BFR exercise in microgravity in a manner that may augment the physiological stress of exercise in an acceptable and tolerable fashion. Importantly, the BFR hardware technology required to perform BFR exercise in an accurate, safe and effective manner performs nominally in microgravity. Future research should aim to conduct investigations during longer exposures to microgravity (i.e. during 3‐ to 6‐month missions on the International Space Station), providing a more comprehensive evaluation of the physiological stimulus provided and the tolerance and acceptability when performing BFR exercise in the space environment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".