Effects of Resting vs. Continuous Blood-Flow Restriction-Training on Strength, Fatigue Resistance, Muscle Thickness, and Perceived Discomfort

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to clarify whether blood-flow restriction during resting intervals [resting blood-flow restriction (rBFR)] is comparable to a continuous BFR (cBFR) training regarding its effects on maximum strength, hypertrophy, fatigue resistance, and perceived discomfort. Materials and Methods: Nineteen recreationally trained participants performed four sets (30-15-15-15 repetitions) with 20% 1RM on a 45 degrees leg press twice a week for 6 weeks (cBFR, n = 10; rBFR, n = 9). Maximum strength, fatigue resistance, muscle thickness, and girth were assessed at three timepoints (pre, mid, and post). Subjective pain and perceived exertion were determined immediately after training at two timepoints (mid and post). Results: Maximum strength (p < 0.001), fatigue resistance (p < 0.001), muscle thickness (p < 0.001), and girth (p = 0.008) increased in both groups over time with no differences between groups (p > 0.05). During the intervention, the rBFR group exposed significantly lower perceived pain and exertion values compared to cBFR (p < 0.05). Discussion: Resting blood-flow restriction training led to similar gains in strength, fatigue resistance, and muscle hypertrophy as cBFR training while provoking less discomfort and perceived exertion in participants. In summary, rBFR training could provide a meaningful alternative to cBFR as this study showed similar functional and structural changes as well as less discomfort.

Automated summary

The study found that resting blood-flow restriction (rBFR) training and continuous blood-flow restriction (cBFR) training had similar effects on maximum strength, muscle hypertrophy, and fatigue resistance, but rBFR training was associated with less discomfort and perceived exertion.