Dataset Information

Exploring immediate cardiorespiratory responses: low-intensity blood flow restricted cycling vs. moderate-intensity traditional exercise in a randomized crossover trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Blood-flow restriction (BFR) endurance training may increase endurance performance and muscle strength similar to traditional endurance training while requiring a lower training intensity. We aimed to compare acute cardiorespiratory responses to low-intensity interval exercise under BFR with moderate-intensity traditional interval exercise (TRA).

Methods

We conducted a randomized crossover study. The protocol involved three cycling intervals interspersed with 1 min resting periods. With a 48-h washout period, individuals performed the protocol twice in random order: once as BFR-50 (i.e., 50% incremental peak power output [IPPO] and 50% limb occlusion pressure [LOP]) and once as TRA-65 (65% IPPO without occlusion). TRA-65 intervals lasted 2 min, and time-matched BFR-50 lasted 2 min and 18 s. Respiratory parameters were collected by breath-by-breath analysis. The ratings of perceived breathing and leg exertion (RPE, 0 to 10) were assessed. Linear mixed models were used for analysis.

Results

Out of the 28 participants initially enrolled in the study, 24 healthy individuals (18 males and 6 females) completed both measurements. Compared with TRA-65, BFR-50 elicited lower minute ventilation (VE, primary outcome) (-3.1 l/min [-4.4 to -1.7]), oxygen consumption (-0.22 l/min [-0.28 to -0.16]), carbon dioxide production (-0.25 l/min [-0.29 to -0.20]) and RPE breathing (-0.9 [-1.2 to -0.6]). RPE leg was significantly greater in the BFR-50 group (1.3 [1.0 to 1.7]).

Conclusion

BFR endurance exercise at 50% IPPO and 50% LOP resulted in lower cardiorespiratory work and perceived breathing effort compared to TRA at 65% IPPO. BFR-50 could be an attractive alternative for TRA-65, eliciting less respiratory work and perceived breathing effort while augmenting perceived leg muscle effort.

Trial registration

NCT05163600; December 20, 2021.

SUBMITTER: Kuhn M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11325739 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring immediate cardiorespiratory responses: low-intensity blood flow restricted cycling vs. moderate-intensity traditional exercise in a randomized crossover trial.

Kuhn Manuel M Clarenbach Christian F CF Kläy Adrian A Kohler Malcolm M Mayer Laura C LC Lüchinger Martin M Andrist Belinda B Radtke Thomas T Haile Sarah R SR Sievi Noriane A NA Kohlbrenner Dario D

BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation 20240815 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>Blood-flow restriction (BFR) endurance training may increase endurance performance and muscle strength similar to traditional endurance training while requiring a lower training intensity. We aimed to compare acute cardiorespiratory responses to low-intensity interval exercise under BFR with moderate-intensity traditional interval exercise (TRA).<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a randomized crossover study. The protocol involved three cycling intervals interspersed with 1 min resting ...[more]

PMID: 39148127

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe results from the physical training and cancer randomized controlled trial (Phys-Can RCT) indicate that high intensity (HI) strength and endurance training during (neo-)adjuvant cancer treatment is more beneficial for cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF, measured as peak oxygen uptake [VO2peak]) than low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise. Adherence to the exercise intervention and demographic or clinical characteristics of patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant treatment may moderate the exercise intervention effect on VO2peak. In this study, the objective was to investigate whether baseline values of VO2peak, body mass index (BMI), time spent in moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA), physical fatigue, age, chemotherapy treatment, and the adherence to the endurance training moderated the effect of HI vs. LMI exercise on VO2peak.Materials and methodsWe used data collected from a subsample from the Phys-Can RCT; women who were diagnosed with breast cancer and had a valid baseline and post-intervention VO2peak test were included (n = 255). The exercise interventions from the RCT included strength and endurance training at either LMI, which was continuous endurance training at 40-50% of heart rate reserve (HRR), or at HI, which was interval training at 80-90% of HRR, with similar exercise volume in the two groups. Linear regression analyses were used to investigate moderating effects using a significance level of p < 0.10. Statistically significant interactions were examined further using the Johnson-Neyman (J-N) technique and regions of significance (for continuous variables) or box plots with adjusted means of post-intervention VO2peak (for binary variables).ResultsAge, as a continuous variable, and adherence, dichotomized into < or > 58% based on median, moderated the effect of HI vs. LMI on CRF (B = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.01], p interaction = 0.06, and B = 1.63, 95% CI [-0.12, 3.38], p interaction = 0.07, respectively). The J-N technique and regions of significance indicated that the intervention effect (HI vs. LMI) was positive and statistically significant in participants aged 61 years or older. Baseline measurement of CRF, MVPA, BMI, physical fatigue, and chemotherapy treatment did not significantly moderate the intervention effect on CRF.ConclusionWomen with breast cancer who are older and who have higher adherence to the exercise regimen may have larger effects of HI exercise during (neo-)adjuvant cancer treatment on CRF.

Project description:BackgroundWith the increasing utilization of cardiac rehabilitation in clinical treatment and prognosis for patients with cardiovascular diseases, exercise training has become a crucial component. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) are commonly employed in rehabilitating patients with cardiovascular diseases. However, further investigation is required to determine whether HIIT and MICT can effectively enhance the prognosis of patients with coronary artery disease. Therefore, this study aims to assess the effectiveness of HIIT and MICT interventions, optimal intervention duration for different intensity levels of training, as well as effective training modalities that improve cardiorespiratory function and exercise capacity among patients.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) pertaining to high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) interventions in patients with coronary artery disease from inception until publication on September 26, 2024. Two independent researchers assessed articles that met the inclusion criteria and analyzed the results using Sata 17.0 software. Forest plots were employed to evaluate the impact of HIIT and MICT on outcome indicators. Sensitivity analysis and funnel plot assessment were performed to examine publication bias. Subgroup analysis was conducted to determine optimal intervention duration and training methods.ResultsA total of 22 studies with 1364 patients were included in the study, including the HIIT group (n = 685) and the MICT group (n = 679). The results showed that compared to MICT, HIIT significantly increased PeakVO2(Peak oxygen uptake)[WMD = 1.42mL /kg/min 95%CI (0.87, 1.98), P = 0.870, I2 = 0%], 6MWT(6-minute walk test)[WMD = 18.60m 95%CI (2.29, 34.92), P = 0.789, I2 = 0%], PHR(Peak heart rate)[WMD = 4.21bpm 95%CI (1.07, 7.36), P = 0.865, I2 = 0%], DBP(diastolic blood pressure)[WMD = 3.43mmHg 95%CI (1.09, 5.76), P = 0.004, I2 = 60.2%]. However, in LVEF(left- ventricular ejection fraction)[WMD = 0.32mL 95%CI (-1.83, 2.46), P = 0.699, I2 = 0%], LVEDV(left ventricular end-diastolic volume)[WMD = 0.91 ml 95%CI (-1.83, 2.46), P = 0.995, I2 = 0%] and SBP(systolic blood pressure)[WMD = 1.85mmHg 95%CI (-0.23, 3.93),P = 0.266, I2 = 18.2%], there was no significant difference between HIIT and MICT.ConclusionBased on the findings of this systematic review, HIIT demonstrates superior efficacy compared to MICT in enhancing PeakVO2, PHR, 6MWT and DBP. However, no significant differences were observed in LVEF, LVEDV, and SBP. In summary, HIIT exhibits potential for improving cardiopulmonary function and exercise capacity among patients with coronary artery disease.

Dataset Information

Exploring immediate cardiorespiratory responses: low-intensity blood flow restricted cycling vs. moderate-intensity traditional exercise in a randomized crossover trial.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Exploring immediate cardiorespiratory responses: low-intensity blood flow restricted cycling vs. moderate-intensity traditional exercise in a randomized crossover trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets