Table 3 Acute performance, metabolic, neuromuscular, biochemical, molecular and perceptual responses of BFR + HIIT protocols
References | Participant profile | Study design | BFR methodology | Exercise protocol | Outcomes | p-value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Site of BFR | Cuff Pressure | Application procedure | ||||||||
Taylor et al. [27] | n=eight healthy trained male cyclists | (1) BFR-SIT (2) SIT (CON) | Proximal portion of each thigh | (1) ~130mmHg (2) No BFR | Inflated within 15-s after each sprint, and 2-min into rest, then deflated after | SIT 4 x 30-s maximal effort cycling sprints, with 4.5min recovery | Performance response | Â | ||
Total work done and PPO similar between groups (BFR: ~67kJ, ~1147W, CON: ~68kJ, ~1149W) Molecular responses | Both p > 0.05 | |||||||||
↑* P38MAPK increased in both groups (BFR: 4.1x, CON: 3.2x) | p = 0.02 | |||||||||
↑* PGC-1a, VEGF, VEGFR-2 in both groups | All p = 0.01 | |||||||||
↑* HIF-1a mRNA at 3h only after BFR | p = 0.04 | |||||||||
Willis et al. [29] | n=11 healthy, active subjects (six men, five women) | (1) No BFR (CON) (2) 45% BFR (3) 60% BFR | Proximal portion of each thigh | (1) No BFR (2) 45% PEP (3) 60% PEP Exact pressure values not specified | Inflated 5-s before the start of RST to the end of the post-RST measures | RST 10-s all-out maximal cycling sprint with 20-s active recovery to volitional exhaustion | Performance response | Â | ||
↓* Number of sprints and work done in 45%BFR (~47% and ~53%)) and 60%BFR group (~66% and 69%) as compared to CON | All p <0.01 | |||||||||
↓* HRmax in 60% BFR compared to CON | p < 0.01 | |||||||||
Perceptual response | Â | |||||||||
↑* RPE legs in both 45% and 60%BFR | Both p <0.05 | |||||||||
Metabolic and oxygenation response: | Â | |||||||||
↓* Peak \(\dot{\mathrm{V}}{\mathrm{O}}_{2}\) at 45% BFR (~12.6%) and 60% BFR (~18.2%) | p < 0.05 | |||||||||
p <0.01 | ||||||||||
↓* Δ[HHb] in 60%BFR as compared to CON | p <0.001 | |||||||||
↑* Δ[tHb] at 45% and 60%BFR compared with CON | p <0.001 | |||||||||
Neuromuscular responses: | Â | |||||||||
↓*MVC, VAL in both 45% and 60% BFR | Both p <0.05 | |||||||||
Peyrard et al. [26] ª | n=14 healthy active subjects (ten men, four women) | (1) Normoxia (CON) (2) Normoxia with BFR (N-BFR) (3) Hypoxia (HYP) (4) Hypoxia with BFR (H-BFR) | Proximal portion of the arms | (1) No BFR (2) 45% PEP (95±12mmhg) | Inflated during dynamic warmup, 5-s prior to the neuromuscular testing & first sprint of aRSA test | aRSA 10-s all-out maximal arm-cycling sprint with 20-s active recovery to volitional exhaustion | Performance responses |  | ||
↓* Number of sprints in N-BFR (~10) as compared to CON (~13) | p < 0.01 | |||||||||
↓* Mean power output of best sprint in N-BFR (~5%) compared to CON | p = 0.02 | |||||||||
Neuromuscular responses: | Â | |||||||||
↑* Δ Mmax more impacted with BFR (-9.4%) than CON (+0.8%) | p < 0.01 | |||||||||
↑* ΔDb10 from pre to post exercise in occlusion conditions (− 40.8% vs -27.9% without BFR) | p < 0.01 | |||||||||
Valenzuela et al. [28]ª | n=eight male elite badminton singles players | (1) RS-Normoxia (CON) (2) RS-BFR (3) RS-Hypoxia (RSH) | Proximal portion of upper thighs | (1) No BFR (2) 40% AOP Exact pressure values not specified | Inflated and maintained throughout session, including rest periods | RST (badminton movement) 3 sets, 10 X 10-s all-out sprint, with 20-s rest. 3-min rest between sets | Performance response |  | ||
↓* total distance in RS-BFR (1243m) than other groups (CON: 1353m, RSH: 1297m) | Both p < 0.05 | |||||||||
↓* mean player load in RS-BFR (1854) compared to CON (2252) | p = 0.01 | |||||||||
Perceptual response | Â | |||||||||
↑* RPE on the legs in RS-BFR (9.5) compared with other groups (both 7) | Both p < 0.05 | |||||||||
No differences in overall RPE between RS-BFR (7.6) and CON (8.1) | p = .682 | |||||||||
Biochemical response | Â | |||||||||
↑* bLa in CON than in RS-BFR in the second set | p < 0.05 | |||||||||
Neuromuscular response | Â | |||||||||
↑* jump alteration in RS-BFR (-7.8%) than CON (-2.9%) | p < 0.05 | |||||||||
Willis et al. [31]ª | n=16 active participants (eleven men, five women) | (1) Normoxia (CON) (2) Normoxia with BFR (N-BFR) (3) Hypoxia (HYP) (4) Hypoxia with BFR (H-BFR) | Proximal portion of the arms | (1) No BFR (2) 45% PEP (93± 12mmhg) | Inflated 5-s before the start of RST and through to the end of the post-RST measures | RST 10-s all-out maximal arm-cycling sprint with 20-s active recovery to volitional exhaustion | Performance response |  | ||
Mean power unchanged throughout all conditions | all p > 0.05 | |||||||||
Number of sprints similar between CON (12) and N-BFR (9) | all p > 0.05 | |||||||||
Oxygenation responses: | Â | |||||||||
↑* Δ[tHb] during both BFR conditions than without | both p < 0.001 | |||||||||
↓* ΔTSI with both BFR conditions than without | both p < 0.001 | |||||||||
Willis et al. [30]ª | n=seven healthy, active participants (five men, two women) | (1) Normoxia (CON) (2) Normoxia with BFR (N-BFR) (3) Hypoxia (HYP) (4) Hypoxia with BFR (H-BFR) | Proximal portion of limbs (arms and legs) | (1) No BFR (2) 45% PEP Exact pressure values not specified | Inflated 5-s before RST, remained inflated continuously until end of post-RST measures. | RST 10-s all-out maximal leg- and arm-cycling sprint with 20-s active recovery to volitional exhaustion | Performance response |  | ||
↓* Number of sprints (leg cycling) in N-BFR (14) than CON (~32) | p < 0.05 | |||||||||
↓* Total work done (leg cycling) in N-BFR (72kj) than CON (183kj) | p < 0.05 | |||||||||
No change in number of sprints and work done during arm-cycling condition | Both p > 0.05 | |||||||||
Metabolic response | Â | |||||||||
↓* VO2(leg cycling) in N-BFR (2597ml/kg/min) than CON (2978ml/kg/min) | p < 0.05 | |||||||||
Oxygenation response | Â | |||||||||
↑* Δ[tHb] (arm cycling) in N-BFR than CON | p < 0.001 | |||||||||