Acute physiological responses to low-intensity blood flow restriction cycling
Acute physiological responses to low-intensity blood flow restriction cycling
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jsams.2018.01.013
复制
发表时间：
2018-09-01
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Peiffer, J. J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Thomas, H. J.;Scott, B. R.;Peiffer, J. J.
目的：间歇循环期间的血流限制（BFR）可能会刺激有氧和无氧适应。然而，BFR 间歇循环的急性生理反应尚未得到广泛研究。 设计：18 名男性以随机和平衡的顺序完成低强度 (LI)、低强度 BFR (LIBFR) 和高强度 (HI) 间歇循环课程。其中包括标准化的热身和三个两分钟的间歇以及两分钟的恢复。 HI、LI 和 LIBFR 期间的间歇强度分别为分级运动测试期间获得的峰值功率输出的 85%、40% 和 40%。 方法：在 LIBFR 期间，在间歇努力期间对双腿施加 80% 动脉闭塞，并在恢复期间移除。记录心率（HR）、心输出量（CO）和耗氧量（（V）超过dotO（2））的连续测量值。按照一定时间间隔测量血压（BP）和感知劳累等级（RPE）。运动前和运动后测量血乳酸浓度。结果：BP、HR、CO (V) 超过 dotO(2)，乳酸和 RPE 在 HI 期间最高。在活动间隔期间，LIBFR 期间的 BP、HR 和 CO 高于 LI。 (V) 在恢复期间，LIBFR 比 LI 中的 dotO(2) 更大。 LIBFR 期间的会后乳酸含量高于 LI。重要的是，第三个间隔期间的平均动脉压 LIBFR (124 +/- 2 mmHg) 显着高于 HI (114 +/- 3 mmHg)。 结论：与 LI 相比，LIBFR 会增加心血管和代谢压力，并且可以为无法进行高强度运动的个体提供替代的有氧训练方法。然而，LIBFR 期间平均动脉压的增加表明心肌负荷较高，因此，如果为血管受损个体开 LIBFR 处方，医生应谨慎行事。 (C) 2018 年澳大利亚运动医学。由爱思唯尔有限公司出版。保留所有权利。
Objectives: Blood flow restriction (BFR) during interval cycling may stimulate aerobic and anaerobic adaptations. However, acute physiological responses to BFR interval cycling have not been extensively investigated.Design: Eighteen males completed low-intensity (LI), low-intensity with BFR (LIBFR) and high-intensity (HI) interval cycling sessions in randomised and counterbalanced order. These included a standardised warm-up and three two-min intervals interspersed with two-min recovery. Interval intensity during HI, LI and LIBFR were 85%, 40% and 40% of peak power output obtained during graded exercise tests.Methods: During LIBFR, 80% arterial occlusion was applied to both legs during the interval efforts and removed during recovery. Continuous measures of heart rate (HR), cardiac output (CO) and oxygen consumption ((V) over dotO(2)) were recorded. Blood pressure (BP) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured following intervals. Blood lactate concentration was measured pre- and post-exercise.Results: BP, HR, CO, (V) over dotO(2), lactate and RPE were greatest during HI. During the active intervals, BP, HR and CO were greater during LIBFR than LI. (V) over dotO(2) during recovery periods were greater in LIBFR than LI. Post session lactate was greater during LIBFR than LI. Importantly, mean arterial pressure during interval three was significantly greater in LIBFR (124 +/- 2 mmHg) than HI (114 +/- 3 mmHg).Conclusions: LIBFR increases cardiovascular and metabolic stress compared with LI and could provide an alternative aerobic training method for individuals unable to perform high-intensity exercise. However, increases in mean arterial pressure during LIBFR indicates high myocardial workload, and practitioners should therefore use caution if prescribing LIBFR for vascular compromised individuals. (C) 2018 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.