12 Weeks Of Blood Flow Restriction Training - Musculoskeletal Implications For Earth And Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Musculoskeletal (MSK) health declines in sedentary adults on Earth and astronauts on long-duration missions in space. Countermeasures maintaining MSK health include high-intensity resistance training (HIRT). HIRT may be contraindicated for returning astronauts and sedentary adults due to injury risk. Blood flow restriction (BFR) with low-intensity resistance training (LIRT) is safe and effective in improving muscle mass and strength. Questions remain regarding BFR LIRT effects on other MSK and fitness parameters. Determine effect of BFR LIRT on body composition, strength, functional capacity and aerobic capacity. METHODS: 12 healthy adults (3 females and 9 males), 46.3.0 ± 18.0 years old with BMI 26.0 ± 4.4 kg/m2 participated in 12-week BFR LIRT. Training 3 times per week at 20 - 30 % of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) with 40 - 50 % limb occlusion pressure (LOP) applied to cuffs of training limbs. 2 upper and 2 lower limbs exercises are performed for 4 sets (30 - 15 - 15 - 15) for a total of 75 repetitions per exercise with 30 s rest between sets. Pre and post assessment includes body composition (fat and lean mass and bone mass density (BMD)) through dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), 30 s sit to stand test, 1RM in leg and chest press and maximal aerobic power (MAP) on cycle ergometer. Cohen’s d effect sizes (ES) were used to assess magnitude of change and paired sample t-test to calculate level of statistical significance (p < 0.05). RESULTS: 30 s sit to stand improvements were large (23.3 ± 5.0 vs. 31.2 ± 6.5 reps, ES = 1.35, p = 0.02), while 1RM improvements were medium in leg press (85.9 ± 23.0 vs. 102.8 ± 28.8 kg, ES = 0.65, p = 0.04) and small in chest press (81.3 ± 27.4 vs. 95.0 ± 26.4 kg, ES = 0.51, p = 0.01). MAP changes were negligible (202.0 ± 40.2 vs. 201.1 ± 60.9 W, ES = 0.02, p = 0.39) changes were negligible. Body composition changes were negligible (fat mass: 20.2 ± 10.2 vs. 19.1 ± 9.3 kg, ES = 0.11, p = 0.48; lean mass: 52.1 ± 9.4 vs. 51.8 ± 8.9 kg, ES = 0.03, p = 0.23; BMD: 1.208 ± 0.093 vs. 1.197 ± 0.085 g/cm2, ES = 0.12, p = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that 12 weeks of BFR LIRT improve functional capacity and upper and lower body strength while preserving aerobic capacity. Supported by: Canadian Space Agency
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".