Acute Effects of Different Blood Flow Restriction Protocols on Bar Velocity During the Squat Exercise

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11510%2F21%3A10429298" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11510/21:10429298 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=0tX7xwTjFH" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=0tX7xwTjFH</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.652896" target="_blank" >10.3389/fphys.2021.652896</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Acute Effects of Different Blood Flow Restriction Protocols on Bar Velocity During the Squat Exercise

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The main goal of the present study was to evaluate the effects of different blood flow restriction (BFR) protocols (continuous and intermittent) on peak bar velocity (PV) and mean bar velocity (MV) during the squat exercise at progressive loads, from 40 to 90% 1RM. Eleven healthy men (age = 23.4 +/- 3.1 years; body mass = 88.5 +/- 12.1 kg; squat 1RM = 183.2 +/- 30.7 kg; resistance training experience, 5.7 +/- 3.6 years) performed experimental sessions once a week for 3 weeks in random and counterbalanced order: without BFR (NO-BFR), with intermittent BFR (I-BFR), and with continuous BFR (C-BFR). During the experimental session, the participants performed six sets of the barbell squat exercise with loads from 40 to 90% 1RM. In each set, they performed two repetitions. During the C-BFR session, the cuffs were maintained throughout the training session. During the I-BFR, the cuffs were used only during the exercise and released for each rest interval. The BFR pressure was set to similar to 80% arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). Analyses of variance showed a statistically significant interaction for MV (p &lt; 0.02; eta(2) = 0.18). However, the post hoc analysis did not show significant differences between particular conditions for particular loads. There was no significant condition x load interaction for PV (p = 0.16; eta(2) = 0.13). Furthermore, there were no main effects for conditions in MV (p = 0.38; eta(2) = 0.09) as well as in PV (p = 0.94; eta(2) = 0.01). The results indicate that the different BFR protocols used during lower body resistance exercises did not reduce peak bar velocity and mean bar velocity during the squat exercise performed with various loads.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Acute Effects of Different Blood Flow Restriction Protocols on Bar Velocity During the Squat Exercise

Popis výsledku anglicky

The main goal of the present study was to evaluate the effects of different blood flow restriction (BFR) protocols (continuous and intermittent) on peak bar velocity (PV) and mean bar velocity (MV) during the squat exercise at progressive loads, from 40 to 90% 1RM. Eleven healthy men (age = 23.4 +/- 3.1 years; body mass = 88.5 +/- 12.1 kg; squat 1RM = 183.2 +/- 30.7 kg; resistance training experience, 5.7 +/- 3.6 years) performed experimental sessions once a week for 3 weeks in random and counterbalanced order: without BFR (NO-BFR), with intermittent BFR (I-BFR), and with continuous BFR (C-BFR). During the experimental session, the participants performed six sets of the barbell squat exercise with loads from 40 to 90% 1RM. In each set, they performed two repetitions. During the C-BFR session, the cuffs were maintained throughout the training session. During the I-BFR, the cuffs were used only during the exercise and released for each rest interval. The BFR pressure was set to similar to 80% arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). Analyses of variance showed a statistically significant interaction for MV (p &lt; 0.02; eta(2) = 0.18). However, the post hoc analysis did not show significant differences between particular conditions for particular loads. There was no significant condition x load interaction for PV (p = 0.16; eta(2) = 0.13). Furthermore, there were no main effects for conditions in MV (p = 0.38; eta(2) = 0.09) as well as in PV (p = 0.94; eta(2) = 0.01). The results indicate that the different BFR protocols used during lower body resistance exercises did not reduce peak bar velocity and mean bar velocity during the squat exercise performed with various loads.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30306 - Sport and fitness sciences

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Frontiers in Physiology [online]

ISSN

1664-042X

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

12

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

neuvedeno

Stát vydavatele periodika

CH - Švýcarská konfederace

Počet stran výsledku

8

Strana od-do

1-8

Kód UT WoS článku

000669454600001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85109102030