High-pressure blood flow restriction acutely reduces maximal torque and power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work has shown that blood flow restriction (BFR) during high-load resistance exercise may be able to acutely augment maximal strength and power, an effect that some hypothesize to be due to a rebound effect from a cuff inflated to a high pressure. However, less known is the role of high pressure independent of any such rebound effect. The objective of this study was to determine whether high-pressure BFR acutely influences strength and power during a concentric-only muscle action. Twenty-five resistance-trained individuals (14 males and 11 females) enrolled in a replicate cross-over trial, in which three paired cycles were completed (i.e., six experimental visits). Each paired cycle involved two visits that were completed in a random order and consisted of maximal strength and power testing (i.e., three maximal concentric knee extension repetitions for both) at either 150% of resting arterial occlusion pressure (150% AOP) or 2 mmHg (sham). Both peak torque (-17 (95% confidence interval (CI): -22.0, -12.7) Nm) and power (-33.9 (95% CI: -46.7, -21.2) W) decreased during the high-pressure BFR condition compared to the sham. Our results suggest that the previous acute strength and power benefits observed with high-load contractions likely are not explained by an independent pressure effect. No acute improvements in strength or power were observed in this investigation. The reason for the reduction in performance in the current study is not known, but we speculate that it may be related to the discomfort associated with contracting under high pressure.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".