Accepted Manuscript

The effects of upper body exercise across different levels of blood

flow restriction on arterial occlusion pressure and perceptual
responses

Kevin T. Mattocks, Matthew B. Jessee, Brittany R. Counts,

Samuel L. Buckner, J. Grant Mouser, Scott J. Dankel, Gilberto C.
Laurentino, Jeremy P. Loenneke

PII: S0031-9384(16)30821-6
DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.01.015
Reference: PHB 11634
To appear in: Physiology & Behavior
Received date: 16 September 2016
Revised date: 28 October 2016
Accepted date: 9 January 2017

Please cite this article as: Kevin T. Mattocks, Matthew B. Jessee, Brittany R. Counts,
Samuel L. Buckner, J. Grant Mouser, Scott J. Dankel, Gilberto C. Laurentino, Jeremy
P. Loenneke , The effects of upper body exercise across different levels of blood flow
restriction on arterial occlusion pressure and perceptual responses. The address for the
corresponding author was captured as affiliation for all authors. Please check if
appropriate. Phb(2017), doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.01.015

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As
a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before
it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the
journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The Effects of Upper Body Exercise across Different Levels of Blood Flow Restriction on
Arterial Occlusion Pressure and Perceptual Responses

Kevin T. Mattocks1, Matthew B. Jessee1, Brittany R. Counts1, Samuel L. Buckner1, J. Grant

Mouser1, Scott J. Dankel1, Gilberto C. Laurentino1, Jeremy P. Loenneke1

1
Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management. Kevser Ermin Applied

T
IP
Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, University, MS.

CR
US
AN
M
ED

Corresponding Author
Jeremy P. Loenneke, PhD
PT

Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory

Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management
The University of Mississippi
CE

231 Turner Center

University, MS 38677
E-Mail: jploenne@olemiss.edu
AC

Phone: 662-915-5567
Fax: 662-915-5525
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Abstract

Recent studies have investigated relative pressures that are applied during blood flow restriction

exercise ranging from 40% – 90% of resting arterial occlusion pressure; however, no studies

have investigated relative pressures below 40% arterial occlusion pressure. The purpose of this

study was to characterize the cardiovascular and perceptual responses to different levels of

T
pressures. Twenty-six resistance trained participants performed four sets of unilateral elbow

IP
flexion exercise using 30% of their 1RM in combination with blood flow restriction inflated to

CR
one of six relative applied pressures (0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 50%, 90% arterial occlusion

pressure). Arterial occlusion pressure was measured before (pre) and immediately after the last

US
set of exercise at the radial artery. RPE and discomfort were taken prior to (pre) and following
AN
each set of exercise. Data presented as mean (95% CI) except for perceptual responses

represented as the median (25th, 75th percentile). Arterial occlusion pressure increased from pre
M

to post (p < 0.001) in all conditions but was augmented further with higher pressures [e.g. 0%:
ED

36 (30 - 42) mmHg vs. 10%: 39 (34 - 44) mmHg vs. 90% 46 (41 - 52) mmHg]. For RPE and

discomfort, there were significant differences across conditions for all sets of exercise (p < 0.01)
PT

with the ratings of RPE [e.g. 0%: 14.5 (13, 17) vs. 10%: 13.5 (12, 17) vs. 90%: 17 (14.75, 19)
CE

during last set] and discomfort [e.g. 0%: 3.5 (1.5, 6.25) vs. 10%: 3 (1, 6) vs. 90%: 7 (4.5, 9)

during last set] generally being greater at the higher restriction pressures. All of these differences
AC

at the higher restriction pressures occurred despite completing a lower total volume of exercise.

Applying higher relative pressures results in the greatest cardiovascular response, higher

perceptual ratings, and greater decrease in exercise volume compared to lower restriction

pressures. Therefore, the perceptual responses from lower relative pressures may be more

appealing and provide a safer and more tolerable stimulus for individuals.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Introduction

Blood flow restriction training has been shown to increase muscle size and strength similar to

high-load resistance training [1,2] with loads as low as 20% of the one repetition maximum

(1RM). Throughout the blood flow restriction literature, a variety of pressures have been applied

ranging from relative pressures that are based on brachial systolic pressure (130% brachial

T
systolic blood pressure) to applying an arbitrary pressure to all individuals [3]. This may be a

IP
concern because applying an arbitrary pressure may restrict blood flow to a greater extent than

CR
what was intended, leading to an exaggerated cardiovascular response [4]. Therefore, it is

suggested that when applying pressure to the cuff, the pressure should account for the

US
individual’s limb circumference the and width of the cuff [5–7]. One method to do this is to
AN
apply a percentage of the resting arterial occlusion pressure which ensures that all participants

will receive a similar stimulus and may also reduce the risk of a negative cardiovascular event
M

[4,8].
ED

Recent studies have investigated relative pressures ranging from 40% – 90% of resting arterial
PT

occlusion pressure during blood flow restriction exercise [9–11]. However, there seems to be
CE

little augmentation in muscle adaptation beyond a relative pressure of 40% arterial occlusion

pressure [9]. To our knowledge, no studies have investigated relative pressures below 40%
AC

arterial occlusion pressure during blood flow restriction exercise. We hypothesize that there is

likely a point at which the relative pressure is too low to be efficacious. It is conceivable that a

pressure of 20% arterial occlusion may be high enough at rest but during exercise drops outside

of the hypothetical pressure range needed for muscle adaptation due to the elevated

cardiovascular response [12, 13]. Thus, the purpose of this study was to characterize the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

cardiovascular response to pressures below 40% arterial occlusion pressure (0%, 10%, 20%,

30% arterial occlusion) and compare them to a moderate (50% arterial occlusion pressure) and

higher (90% arterial occlusion pressure) relative pressure. We also sought to investigate the

perceptual response across these pressures to determine whether or not they differ from simply

completing the exercise protocol in the absence of blood flow restriction. This is important

T
because higher perceptual responses, despite the effectiveness of blood flow restriction, may

IP
deter its use in practice.

CR
US
Methods

Participants
AN
Twenty-six resistance trained participants (20 men, 6 women) completed all of the testing
M

sessions. Individuals were classified as ‘resistance trained” if they performed resistance training
ED

two or more days per week for at least the past 6 months in the upper body. All participants were

instructed to refrain from: 1) eating two hours prior in all visits; 2) consuming caffeine eight
PT

hours prior to all visits; 3) consuming alcohol 24 hours prior to all visits; and 4) upper body

exercise 24 hours before all visits. Participants were excluded if they had more than one risk
CE

factor for thromboembolism [14] which included the following: obesity (BMI  30 kg/m2);
AC

diagnosed Crohn’s disease; a past fracture of the hip, pelvis or femur; major surgery within the

last 6 months; varicose veins; a family or personal history of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary

embolism. Also, participants who were currently using tobacco products were excluded. The

study received approval from the University’s institutional review board and each participant

gave written informed consent before participation.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Study Design

During visit 1, the participants filled out an informed consent form, adult health history

questionnaire and physical activity readiness questionnaire (PAR-Q). After confirming that they

did not meet any exclusion criteria, height and body mass were measured using a standard

stadiometer and an electronic scale. Next, the participants were seated in a quiet room for 10

T
minutes. Following the rest period, participants had their standing arterial occlusion pressure

IP
determined in both arms at the radial artery in a randomized fashion. The participants then tested

CR
their unilateral concentric elbow flexion one-repetition maximum (1RM) for each arm and were

then familiarized with isometric testing. Following this, participants were familiarized with the

US
blood flow restriction stimulus. After visit 1, participants were scheduled for their testing visits
AN
with a minimum of five and a maximum of 10 days between visits at the same time of day.

During visits 2, 3, and 4, participants performed two exercise conditions of unilateral elbow
M

flexion in combination with blood flow restriction at 30% of their concentric 1RM in a random
ED

order (one condition per arm). The participants exercised at 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 50%, or 90%

of their standing resting arterial occlusion pressure. The goal repetitions for the exercise protocol
PT

consisted of one set of 30 repetitions followed by three sets of 15 repetitions with 30 s rest
CE

periods between sets. Upon completion of the final set, arterial occlusion pressure was

determined again. A metronome was used to ensure that the participants held the cadence of one
AC

second for the concentric muscle action and one second for the eccentric muscle action during

the unilateral elbow flexion exercise. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and discomfort were

taken prior to (pre) and following each set of exercise.

Determination of Arterial Occlusion Pressure

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Following 10 minutes of seated rest, arterial occlusion was measured on both arms. The arm

randomly assigned to exercise first, was measured first. The cuff was then removed and placed

on the other arm to determine resting arterial occlusion for that limb. The cuff used was a 5cm

wide nylon cuff applied to the most proximal portion of the arm. The lowest pressure at which

blood flow at the radial artery was no longer present was determined in the standing position

T
using a Doppler hand-held probe (MD6 Doppler Probe, Hokanson, Bellevue, WA, USA).

IP
Pressure was regulated by the E20 Rapid Cuff Inflator (Hokanson, Bellevue, WA) and was

CR
inflated to 50 mmHg before being progressively increased by 1 mmHg increments until a pulse

was no longer detected. The participants exercised with the cuff in place and upon completion of

US
the exercise, the applied pressure was increased until blood flow was no longer present and the
AN
cuff was deflated immediately. Thirty minutes after the first condition, the participants were

seated in a quiet room for five minutes. Following the rest period, participants had their standing
M

arterial occlusion pressure determined on the arm that was not trained first and then that arm
ED

completed an additional exercise protocol. Although the arterial occlusion pressure was

determined in this arm after the first 10 minute rest, the arterial occlusion pressure used for
PT

exercise was based on the assessment obtained immediately prior to exercise in that arm. This
CE

was done to ensure that if there was an augmented cardiovascular response from the first

exercise condition, it would be accounted for by the “new baseline”. It should be noted that there
AC

were only minor differences between the first and second measurements [mean difference (95%

CI); 5 (4 – 6) mmHg].

One-Repetition Maximum Testing

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A one-repetition maximum (1RM) for the unilateral elbow flexion exercise was obtained on both

arms for each individual on visit 1. Briefly, participants warmed up with a relatively low load

corresponding to an estimated 30% 1RM. Following the brief warm-up, the load was increased

to approximately 90% of the individuals 1RM and participants performed one repetition.

Thereafter, the load was adjusted to an estimated 1RM and the load was either increased or

T
decreased in 0.5 kg increments until a 1RM was obtained. The dumbbell was handed to each

IP
individual at full elbow extension and participants were instructed to keep their back and heels

CR
against the wall during all 1RM attempts to ensure strict form. Only those attempts that

maintained proper form were counted.

US
AN
Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

RPE was taken before the start of exercise and immediately following each set using the standard
M

Borg 6-20 scale as previously described [15]. Participants were explained in depth how to rate
ED

their RPE and to ensure they understood the scale being used. Participants were told, “We want

you to rate your perception of exertion, that is, how heavy and strenuous the exercise feels to
PT

you. The perception of exertion depends mainly on the strain and fatigue in your muscles. We
CE

want you to use this scale from 6-20, where 6 means ‘no exertion at all’ and 20 means ‘maximal

exertion’; any questions?” Participants confirmed that they fully understood how to rate RPE
AC

prior to actual testing. RPE was taken immediately after sets 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Ratings of Discomfort

A rating of discomfort was taken prior to the start of exercise and following each set using the

Borg Discomfort scale (CR-10+) as described previously [15]. For example, participants were
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

asked, “What was your worst experiences of discomfort? ‘Maximum discomfort (rating of 10)’

is your main point of reference; it is anchored by your previously experienced worst discomfort.

The worst discomfort that you have ever experienced, the ‘Maximum discomfort’ may not be the

highest possible level of discomfort. There may be a level of discomfort that is still stronger than

your 10; if this is the case, you will say 11 or 12. If the discomfort is much stronger, for example,

T
1.5 times ‘Maximum Discomfort’ you will say 15; any questions?” Participants confirmed that

IP
they fully understood how to rate discomfort prior to actual testing. Ratings of discomfort were

CR
taken before exercise, as well as 20 seconds after sets 1, 2, 3, and immediately after set 4.

Discomfort was taken 20 seconds after each set because participants in previous blood flow

US
restriction studies anecdotally noted greater discomfort later in the rest periods.
AN
Statistical Analysis
M

All data were analyzed using the SPSS 22 statistical software package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).
ED

For arterial occlusion pressure, a 6 (condition) x 2 (time) repeated measures of analysis of

variance (ANOVA) was conducted. If there was a significant interaction, paired sample t-tests
PT

determined differences from pre-to-post exercise within each condition and one-way repeated
CE

measures ANOVAs determined differences across conditions within each time point. To

compare differences in the perceptual responses (RPE and discomfort), a Friedman non-
AC

parametric test was used to determine if differences existed between conditions at different time

points (Pre, 1st set, 2nd set, 3rd set, 4th set). If there were significant differences, Wilcoxon

related samples nonparametric tests were used to determine where the difference occurred. For

exercise volume, a one-way repeated measures ANOVA determined differences in exercise

volume across conditions. All data are presented as means and 95% confidence intervals except
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

for the perceptual responses which are represented as 50th (25th, 75th) percentiles. Statistical

significance was set at an alpha level 0.05.

Results

Participants

T
A total of 26 resistance trained males (n=20) and females (n=6) [mean (95% CI); Age: 22 (21-

IP
23) yrs; Height: 175.3 (171.2 - 179.4) cm: Body mass: 78.7 (73.4 - 84.1) kg; Left arm 1RM: 22.6

CR
(19.9 - 25.4) kg; Right arm 1RM: 22.9 (20.1 - 24.6) kg] completed the study protocol.

Arterial Occlusion Pressure

US
AN
There was a significant condition x time interaction with arterial occlusion pressure (F=3.527, p

= 0.014). Follow up tests found that all conditions increased arterial occlusion pressure from pre
M

to post (p < 0.001). No significant differences were noted between conditions at pre (F= 0.461, p
ED

= 0.805), however, differences between conditions were found at post (Figure 1, F= 4.128 p

=0.002). Supplementary Figure 1 displays the pre-post change score (95% CI) in arterial
PT

occlusion pressure across relative pressures. Given the increase in arterial occlusion pressure
CE

with exercise, there were noted decreases in the relative applied pressure which is displayed in

Figure 2.
AC

Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

There were no differences in RPE at pre (Table 1, χ2=3.5, p = 0.623); however, there were

significant differences across conditions for sets 1 (χ2 =18.893, p < 0.05), 2 (χ2 = 30.364, p <
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0.001), 3 (χ2 = 24.616, p < 0.001), and 4 (χ2 = 29.334, p < 0.001) of exercise with the RPE

generally being greater at the higher applied pressures.

Ratings of Discomfort

There were no differences in ratings of discomfort at pre (Table 1, χ2=2.722, p = 0.743);

T
however, there were significant differences across conditions for sets 1 (χ2 =48.820, p < 0.001), 2

IP
(χ2 = 58.885, p < 0.001), 3 (χ2 = 58.724, p < 0.001), and 4 (χ2 = 55.748, p < 0.001) with the

CR
ratings of discomfort generally being greater at the higher applied pressures.

Exercise Volume
US
AN
There was a significant difference between conditions (F=22.526, p < 0.001) in exercise volume,

with the higher restriction pressures completing less volume compared to lower restriction
M

pressures (Figure 3). When displayed as total repetitions completed across arterial occlusion
ED

pressures [mean (95% CI)], the majority of individuals were unable to complete the goal number

of repetitions [0%: 65 (62 - 69); 10%: 65 (61 - 69); 20%: 65 (61 - 69); 30%: 64 (60 - 68); 50%:
PT

62 (58 - 67); and 90%: 50 (44 - 55) repetitions].

CE

Discussion
AC

The current study uncovered three findings: 1) the application of a relative restriction pressure

decreases following upper body exercise due to an augmented cardiovascular response, 2)

perceptual responses were significantly different across conditions and for all sets with the

higher relative pressure coinciding with the greatest ratings of RPE and discomfort, and 3)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

exercise volume was different between conditions with the higher relative pressure completing

less volume compared to the lower relative pressures.

The current study sought to further investigate the change in the cardiovascular response to six

different relative restriction pressures following 4 sets of blood flow restriction exercise. It has

T
recently been observed by Brandner et al. [16] that blood flow restricted exercise (10.5 cm wide

IP
cuff used for exercise) with intermittent high-pressure (130% systolic blood pressure measured

CR
with an 8 cm wide cuff) caused a similar hemodynamic (i.e. heart rate, blood pressure, cardiac

output, rate pressure product) response compared to traditional high load exercise. Further, they

US
observed that exercise in combination with low-continuous pressure (80% systolic blood
AN
pressure measured with an 8 cm wide cuff) produced a response in between that observed with

high load and low load exercise. This suggests that when performing blood flow restriction
M

exercise, greater levels of blood flow restriction will augment the cardiovascular response but not
ED

necessarily augment the muscle adaptation [9,11]. Additionally, low-intensity aerobic exercise in

combination with blood flow restriction has demonstrated a greater increase in the cardiovascular
PT

response compared to exercise without blood flow restriction [17]. However, the restriction
CE

pressure applied to the participants in the aforementioned studies were not made relative to the

participant or the cuff used during the exercise which may have had some individuals under
AC

complete arterial occlusion. This augmented cardiovascular response could be due to the

mechanical compression of the vascular tree which may augment the exercise-induce pressor

response [18]. Although the magnitude of change in pressure may not be of concern to a healthy

participant, this may be more concerning for aging individuals and/or individuals with a

compromised cardiovascular system (e.g. hypertension). It can be hypothesized that applying a

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

lower relative pressure may maximize muscle adaptation while causing less mechanical

compression. Less mechanical compression may minimize the exercise-induced pressor response

which may lessen the chances of an adverse event [4,8]. However, it is also important to

understand that the relative restriction pressure will decrease with exercise. Thus, a pressure

sufficient at the beginning of exercise may no longer restrict the same amount of blood flow

T
following exercise. A previous study found that the relative restriction pressure of 40% arterial

IP
occlusion pressure decreased ~8% immediately after a bout of blood flow restriction exercise in

CR
the upper body indicating an increase in the cardiovascular response during exercise [12]. In

agreement with the previous study, we also observed a decrease in the relative restriction

US
pressure following a bout of upper body exercise with the addition of incorporating multiple
AN
levels of blood flow restriction pressures. Examining the cardiovascular response to this type of

exercise can help determine an appropriate restriction pressure to minimize the exaggerated
M

cardiovascular response while maximizing muscular adaptation.

ED

In regards to perceptual responses (RPE and discomfort), there is limited information on RPE
PT

throughout different levels of restriction pressures [10,19,20]. Yasuda et al. [19] applied two
CE

different pressures to the participants when performing unilateral bicep curls and observed that a

restriction pressure of 160 mmHg induced a higher RPE compared to 100 mmHg; however,
AC

these pressures were not individualized to the cuff or participant. Therefore, some individuals

may have been fully occluded with 160 mmHg which may have augmented their RPE.

Conversely, when applying a relative restriction pressure based on the participant’s arterial

occlusion pressure [10,20], there were no differences in RPE. While applying a relative

restriction pressure to the participants in the current study, however, there were differences in
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

RPE. A possible reason for the discrepancy between Loenneke et al. [10,20] and the current

study is that the authors in that study applied moderate to high restriction pressures while we

applied low to high restriction pressures. Although the pressures applied were randomized,

participants had a greater probability of exercising at a lower restriction pressure (4 conditions

compared to 1 condition) before exercising at a higher restriction pressure. For example, the

T
participant may have received a relative restriction pressure of <40% in the first condition and

IP
used the ratings from this condition as their anchor for subsequent pressures; thus, when

CR
receiving a relative restriction pressure of 90% their ratings were altered due to the large

difference in mechanical compression (or vice versa).

US
AN
The results from the current study display that discomfort ratings were greatest when a higher

relative pressure (90% arterial occlusion pressure) was applied which agrees with a previous
M

study conducted by Counts et al. [9]. The authors of that study examined discomfort in the upper
ED

body at 40% and 90% arterial occlusion pressure and found that 90% arterial occlusion pressure

resulted in a greater rating of discomfort. Interestingly, however, the results from our study and
PT

Counts et al. [9] differ from Loenneke et al. [10] where there were little differences in discomfort
CE

with pressures ranging 40% - 90% arterial occlusion pressure. There are a few possible reasons

for the divergences between the studies. Counts et al. [9] examined untrained participants while
AC

Loenneke et al. [10] examined resistance trained individuals which suggests training status may

be playing some role. There were also differences in baseline 1RM between the two studies

which may suggest that the pressure applied may have less of an impact on the ratings of

discomfort in those who are training with an overall higher absolute load (Baseline 1RM: Counts

et al. – 11.2 kg; Loenneke et al. ~19 kg). We examined resistance trained individuals with similar
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

strength levels (Baseline 1RM: 22.9 kg) as Loenneke et al. [10] but observed an increased

discomfort at the higher relative pressures. Possible reasons for the discrepancy between the

current study and the aforementioned study could be that they examined relative pressures

ranging from moderate to high while the current study examined relative pressures ranging from

low to high. It may be that participants could not notice a big difference between moderate to

T
high relative pressures applied (40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% arterial occlusion) due to

IP
the small increased increments of pressures applied which resulted in little differences in ratings

CR
of discomfort between pressures. Thus, similar to RPE, part of the discrepancy may be due to the

probability that lower pressures were experienced first altering the subsequent ratings of the

higher pressure condition or vice versa.

US
AN
Limitations
M

In view of the results presented herein, our study has some limitations. We measured the
ED

pressure required for resting arterial occlusion but did not quantify the change in blood flow.

Future studies should quantify the change in blood flow through different levels of relative
PT

restriction pressures in-between sets and/or arterial occlusion pressure to determine where the
CE

change is occurring. Additionally, we used a 5 cm nylon cuff and it is possible that these results

could differ with cuffs of different widths. It may be that a wide cuff, inflated to a relative
AC

pressure, may still induce a greater cardiovascular or perceptual response since it covers up both

more area of the muscle as well as more of the vascular structures. Regardless, the results of the

present study are specific to 5cm wide nylon cuffs.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Conclusion

Applying a relative restriction pressure based on arterial occlusion pressure during blood flow

restriction exercise has been shown to produce favorable adaptations while also ensuring a

common stimulus. It appears for muscular adaptations, 40% arterial occlusion [9] is all that is

required at 30% 1RM; however, the cardiovascular response is different depending on the

T
relative restricted pressure applied. Currently it is unknown whether pressures <40% arterial

IP
occlusion pressure with a load of 30% 1RM induces similar muscular and vascular adaptations

CR
compared to moderate and high pressures. The current investigation sought to characterize the

cardiovascular and perceptual responses to blood flow restriction exercise through different

US
levels of restriction pressures. Applying a lower relative restriction pressure resulted in lower
AN
perceptual responses which may be more appealing to individuals and result in better adherence

to blood flow restriction exercise. Future research could investigate if a lower load (20% 1RM)
M

and different levels of pressures produce different or similar cardiovascular and perceptual
ED

responses. Overall, these results provide additional information to the blood flow restriction

literature by categorizing the cardiovascular and perceptual response to pressures < 40% arterial
PT

occlusion. In addition, these findings may guide future studies to provide a safer and more
CE

tolerable stimulus for the individual who still wants to increase muscle size while concomitantly

minimizing the cardiovascular response.

AC

Acknowledgements

This study was supported in part by the Biolayne foundation (SJD and JPL).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References:

1. Takarada Y, Takazawa H, Sato Y, Takebayashi S, Tanaka Y, Ishii N. Effects of resistance

exercise combined with moderate vascular occlusion on muscular function in humans. J. Appl.
Physiol. Bethesda Md 1985. 2000;88:2097–106.

2. Laurentino GC, Ugrinowitsch C, Roschel H, Aoki MS, Soares AG, Neves M, et al. Strength
training with blood flow restriction diminishes myostatin gene expression. Med. Sci. Sports
Exerc. 2012;44:406–12.

T
3. Ingram J, Loenneke JP. The Current State of Blood Flow Restriction [Internet]. 2015.

IP
Available from:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qmkxwzncpjrr0q2/OleMiss_BloodFlowRestriction.pdf?dl=0.

CR
4. Spranger MD, Krishnan AC, Levy PD, O’Leary DS, Smith SA. Blood flow restriction training
and the exercise pressor reflex: a call for concern. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol.
2015;309:H1440–52.

US
5. Loenneke JP, Fahs CA, Rossow LM, Sherk VD, Thiebaud RS, Abe T, et al. Effects of cuff
width on arterial occlusion: implications for blood flow restricted exercise. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
AN
2012;112:2903–12.

6. Loenneke JP, Fahs CA, Rossow LM, Thiebaud RS, Mattocks KT, Abe T, et al. Blood flow
restriction pressure recommendations: a tale of two cuffs. Front. Physiol. 2013;4:249.
M

7. Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, Counts BR, Jessee MB, Mouser JG, Mattocks KT, et al. Influence of
ED

cuff material on blood flow restriction stimulus in the upper body. J. Physiol. Sci. JPS. 2016;

8. Jessee MB, Buckner SL, Mouser JG, Mattocks KT, Loenneke JP. Letter to the editor:
Applying the blood flow restriction pressure: the elephant in the room. Am. J. Physiol. Heart
PT

Circ. Physiol. 2016;310:H132–3.

9. Counts BR, Dankel SJ, Barnett BE, Kim D, Mouser JG, Allen KM, et al. Influence of relative
CE

blood flow restriction pressure on muscle activation and muscle adaptation. Muscle Nerve.
2016;53:438–45.
AC

10. Loenneke JP, Kim D, Mouser JG, Allen KM, Thiebaud RS, Abe T, et al. Are there
perceptual differences to varying levels of blood flow restriction? Physiol. Behav.
2016;157:277–80.

11. Lixandrão ME, Ugrinowitsch C, Laurentino G, Libardi CA, Aihara AY, Cardoso FN, et al.
Effects of exercise intensity and occlusion pressure after 12 weeks of resistance training with
blood-flow restriction. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2015;115:2471–80.

12. Barnett BE, Dankel SJ, Counts BR, Nooe AL, Abe T, Loenneke JP. Blood flow occlusion
pressure at rest and immediately after a bout of low load exercise. Clin. Physiol. Funct. Imaging.
2015; 10.1111/cpf.12246.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

13. Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, Abe T, Bemben MG. Blood flow restriction pressure
recommendations: the hormesis hypothesis. Med. Hypotheses. 2014;82:623–6.

14. Motykie GD, Zebala LP, Caprini JA, Lee CE, Arcelus JI, Reyna JJ, et al. A guide to venous
thromboembolism risk factor assessment. J. Thromb. Thrombolysis. 2000;9:253–62.

15. Loenneke JP, Fahs CA, Thiebaud RS, Rossow LM, Abe T, Ye X, et al. The acute muscle
swelling effects of blood flow restriction. Acta Physiol. Hung. 2012;99:400–10.

16. Brandner CR, Kidgell DJ, Warmington SA. Unilateral bicep curl hemodynamics: Low-

T
pressure continuous vs high-pressure intermittent blood flow restriction. Scand. J. Med. Sci.

IP
Sports. 2015;25:770–7.

17. Renzi CP, Tanaka H, Sugawara J. Effects of Leg Blood Flow Restriction during Walking on

CR
Cardiovascular Function. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2010;42:726–32.

18. Rossow LM, Fahs CA, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, Sherk VD, Abe T, et al. Cardiovascular

US
and perceptual responses to blood-flow-restricted resistance exercise with differing restrictive
cuffs. Clin. Physiol. Funct. Imaging. 2012;32:331–7.
AN
19. Yasuda T, Abe T, Brechue WF, Iida H, Takano H, Meguro K, et al. Venous blood gas and
metabolite response to low-intensity muscle contractions with external limb compression.
Metabolism. 2010;59:1510–9.
M

20. Loenneke JP, Kim D, Fahs CA, Thiebaud RS, Abe T, Larson RD, et al. The effects of
resistance exercise with and without different degrees of blood-flow restriction on perceptual
ED

responses. J. Sports Sci. 2015;33:1472–9.

PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1. Perceptual Responses to differing levels of arterial occlusion pressure. Sets with different letters represent significant
differences between pressures (p  0.05). If conditions contain at least one of the same letter, they are not significantly different from each
other. Values are represented as median (25th, 75th percentile).

Ratings of Perceived Exertion

% Arterial Occlusion
0%
Pre
6 (6, 6)
Set 1
12 (9, 14) a
Set 2
13 (12, 15) ab
Set 3
14.5 (12.75, 17) abc
P T Set 4
14.5 (13, 17) a

I
b
10% 6 (6, 6) 10 (9, 13) 12 (9, 15) b 14 (11, 16) c 13.5 (12, 17) a
20% 6 (6, 6) 11 (9, 13.5) ab 13 (11, 15.5) abcdef 14 (11, 16) c 15 (12, 16.25) a
30%
50%
6 (6, 6)
6 (6, 6)
13 (9.75, 14)
12.5 (11, 14)
abc
c
14, (12, 15.5) af
14 (12.5 16) cdef
C R
15 (13, 16.25) b
15 (13.75, 17) b
15 (13, 16.25) a
15 (13, 17) a

S
c
90% 6 (6, 6) 13 (9.75, 15) 15 (13, 16.5) g 16 (14.5 17.5) d 17 (14.75, 19) b

% Arterial Occlusion Pre

Ratings of Discomfort
Set 1 Set 2
N U Set 3 Set 4
0%
10%
0 (0, 0)
0 (0, 0)
2 (0.5, 3) a
1 (0.45, 3) a
A
3 (0.875, 3) a
2 (0.650, 3) ab
3 (1, 4.5) a
2.5 (0.85, 4.5) a
3.5 (1.5, 6.25) a
3 (1, 6) ab
20%
30%
0 (0, 0)
0 (0, 0)
1.75 (0.5, 3)
2 (0.65, 3) ab
a

M
2 (0.925, 3) b
2.75 (1.5, 4.25) a
2.5 (1.25, 4) a
3 (2, 5) a
3 (1.375, 4) b
3.5 (2.375, 6) ac
50%
90%
0 (0, 0)
0 (0, 0) D
2.25 (0.925, 3)

E
4.5, (2.75, 6) c
b
3.5 (1.875, 5) c
5 (3.75, 7) d
4 (2, 6.5) b
7 (5, 9) c
4.5 (3, 7) c
7 (4.5, 9) d

P T
C E
A C
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure Legends

Figure 1. Mean arterial occlusion pressure before (pre) and immediately after exercise (post). An asterisk
indicates a significant difference from pre-to-post (p  .05). Conditions with different letters represent
significant differences between conditions for post values (p  .05). If two conditions contain at least one
of the same letter, they are not significantly different from each other. Data represented as mean (95%
CI).

Figure 2. Relative applied arterial occlusion pressure differences from pre to post. Data represented as

T
mean (95% CI).

IP
CR
Figure 3. Average total exercise volume completed across conditions. Conditions with different letters
represent significant differences between conditions (p  .05). If two conditions contain at least one of the
same letter, they are not significantly different from each other. Data represented as mean (95% CI).

US
Supplementary Figure 1. The mean pre-post change in arterial occlusion pressure across
AN
conditions. The mean change in arterial occlusion pressure from pre with variability in change
represented by 95% confidence intervals.
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
Figure 1 US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
Figure 2 US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
Figure 3 US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

 Higher relative pressures result in the greatest cardiovascular responses

 Perceptual responses are augmented with increasing applied pressure

 Due to the cardiovascular response, the relative restriction pressure decreases during
exercise.

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC