Acute Cardiovascular Response to Unilateral , Bilateral, and Alternating Resistance Exercise With Blood Flow Restriction

Authors

Daphney M. Stanford, University of MississippiFollow
Joonsun Park, University of Southern Mississippi
Raymond Jones, University of Southern MississippiFollow
Daniel P. Credeur, University of Southern MississippiFollow
Stephanie McCoy, University of Southern MississippiFollow
Matthew B. Jessee, University of Mississippi

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

6-25-2020

Department

Kinesiology

School

Kinesiology and Nutrition

Abstract

Aim: Blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise is a common alternative to traditional high-load resistance exercise used to increase muscle size and strength. Some populations utilizing BFR at a low load may wish to limit their cardiovascular response to exercise. Different contraction patterns may attenuate the cardiovascular response, but this has not been compared using BFR.

Purpose: To compare the cardiovascular response to unilateral (UNI), bilateral (BIL), and alternating (ALT) BFR exercise contraction patterns.

Methods: Twenty healthy participants performed four sets (30 s rest) of knee extensions to failure, using 30% one-repetition maximum, 40% arterial occlusion pressure, and each of the three contraction patterns (on different days, at the same time of day, separated by 2–10 days, randomized). Cardiovascular responses, presented as pre- to post-exercise mean changes (SD), were measured using pulse wave analysis and analyzed with Bayesian RMANOVA.

Results: ALT caused greater changes in: aortic systolic [ΔmmHg: ALT = 21(8); UNI = 13(11); BIL = 15(8); BF₁₀ = 29.599], diastolic [ΔmmHg: ALT = 13(8); UNI = 7(11); BIL = 8(8); BF₁₀ = 5.175], and mean arterial [ΔmmHg: ALT = 19(8); UNI = 11(11); BIL = 13(7); BF₁₀ = 48.637] blood pressures. Aortic [ΔmmHg bpm: ALT = 4945(2340); UNI = 3294(1408); BIL = 3428 (1461); BF₁₀ = 113.659] and brachial [ΔmmHg bpm: ALT = 6134(2761); UNI = 4300(1709); BIL = 4487(1701); BF₁₀ = 31.845] rate pressure products, as well as heart rate [Δbpm: ALT = 26(14); UNI = 19(8); BIL = 19(11); BF₁₀ = 5.829] were greatest with ALT. Augmentation index [Δ%: UNI = -6(13); BIL = − 7(11); ALT = − 5(16); BF₁₀ = 0.155] and wave reflection magnitude [Δ%: UNI = − 5(9); BIL = − 4(7); ALT = − 4(7); BF₁₀ = 0.150] were not different.

Conclusion: Those at risk of a cardiovascular event may choose unilateral or bilateral BFR exercise over alternating until further work determines the degree to which it can be tolerated.

Publication Title

European Journal of Applied Physiology

First Page

1921

Last Page

1930

Recommended Citation

Stanford, D. M., Park, J., Jones, R., Credeur, D. P., McCoy, S., Jessee, M. B. (2020). Acute Cardiovascular Response to Unilateral , Bilateral, and Alternating Resistance Exercise With Blood Flow Restriction. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 1921-1930.
Available at: https://aquila.usm.edu/fac_pubs/18094