Comparing the acute responses between a manual and automated blood flow restriction system

Daphney M Carter; Matthew A Chatlaong; William M Miller; J Barnes Benton; Matthew B Jessee

doi:10.3389/fphys.2024.1409702

Comparing the acute responses between a manual and automated blood flow restriction system

Front Physiol. 2024 Jun 14:15:1409702. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2024.1409702. eCollection 2024.

Authors

Daphney M Carter¹, Matthew A Chatlaong², William M Miller³, J Barnes Benton⁴, Matthew B Jessee²

Affiliations

¹ Wellstar College of Health and Human Services, Department of Exercise Science and Sport Management, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, United States.
² Applied Human Health and Physical Function Laboratory, School of Applied Science, Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, University, MS, United States.
³ College of Education and Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Evansville, Evansville, IN, United States.
⁴ School of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, United States.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare acute responses between manual and automated blood flow restriction (BFR) systems.

Methods: A total of 33 individuals completed this study. On visit 1, arterial occlusion pressure (AOP, mm Hg), cardiovascular responses, and discomfort (RPE-D) were measured with each BFR system at rest. On visit 2, unilateral bicep curls were completed [30% one-repetition maximum; 50% AOP] with one system per arm. Muscle thickness (MT, cm) and maximal force (N) were assessed before (pre), immediately (post-0), 5 min (post-5), and 10 min (post-10) post-exercise. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE-E) and ratings of perceived discomfort (RPE-D) were assessed throughout the exercise. AOP and repetitions were compared with Bayesian paired t-tests. Other outcomes were compared with Bayesian RMANOVAs. BF₁₀ represents the likelihood of the best model vs. the null. The results are presented as mean ± SD.

Results: Supine cardiovascular responses and RPE-D were similar for manual and automated (all BF₁₀ ≤ 0.2). Supine AOP for manual (157 ± 20) was higher than that of automated (142 ± 17; BF₁₀ = 44496.0), but similar while standing (manual: 141 ± 17; automated: 141 ± 22; BF₁₀ = 0.2). MT (time, BF₁₀ = 6.047e + 40) increased from Pre (3.9 ± 0.7) to Post-0 (4.4 ± 0.8; BF₁₀ = 2.969e + 28), with Post-0 higher than Post-5 (4.3 ± 0.8) and Post-10 (4.3 ± 0.8; both BF₁₀ ≥ 275.2). Force (time, BF₁₀ = 1.246e + 29) decreased from Pre (234.5 ± 79.2) to Post-0 (149.8 ± 52.3; BF₁₀ = 2.720e + 22) and increased from Post-0 to Post-5 (193.3 ± 72.7; BF₁₀ = 1.744e + 13), with Post-5 to Post-10 (194.0 ± 70.6; BF₁₀ = 0.2) being similar. RPE-E increased over sets. RPE-D was lower for manual than automated. Repetitions per set were higher for manual (Set 1: 37 ± 18; Set 4: 9 ± 5) than automated (Set 1: 30 ± 7; Set 4: 7 ± 3; all BF₁₀ ≥ 9.7).

Conclusion: Under the same relative pressure, responses are mostly similar between BFR systems, although a manual system led to lower exercise discomfort and more repetitions.

Keywords: hemodynamic; kaatsu; muscle thickness; perception; resistance; strength; ultrasound; vascular.

Grants and funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.