Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39030574›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2024

Differential training benefits and motor unit remodeling in wrist force precision tasks following high and low load blood flow restriction exercises under volume-matched conditions.

Yen-Ting Lin, Chun-Man Wong, Yi-Ching Chen, Yueh Chen, Ing-Shiou Hwang

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Yen-Ting LinDepartment of Ball Sport, National Taiwan University of Sport, Taichung City, Taiwan.
Chun-Man WongDepartment of Physical Therapy, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City, Taiwan.
Yi-Ching ChenDepartment of Physical Therapy, College of Medical Science and Technology, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung City, Taiwan.
Yueh ChenOrthopedic Department, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital Tainan Branch, Tainan City, Taiwan.
Ing-Shiou HwangDepartment of Physical Therapy, College of Medical Science and Technology, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung City, Taiwan. ishwang@mail.ncku.edu.tw.

Funding

National Science and Technology Council 111-2410-H-028 -009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBlood flow restriction (BFR) resistance training has demonstrated efficacy in promoting strength gains beneficial for rehabilitation. Yet, the distinct functional advantages of BFR strength training using high-load and low-load protocols remain unclear. This study explored the behavioral and neurophysiological mechanisms that explain the differing effects after volume-matched high-load and low-load BFR training.

methodsTwenty-eight healthy participants were randomly assigned to the high-load blood flow restriction (BFR-HL, n = 14) and low-load blood flow restriction (BFR-LL, n = 14) groups. They underwent 3 weeks of BFR training for isometric wrist extension at intensities of 25% or 75% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) with matched training volume. Pre- and post-tests included MVC and trapezoidal force-tracking tests (0-75%-0% MVC) with multi-channel surface electromyography (EMG) from the extensor digitorum.

resultsThe BFR-HL group exhibited a greater strength gain than that of the BFR-LL group after training (BFR_HL: 26.96 ± 16.33% vs. BFR_LL: 11.16 ± 15.34%)(p = 0.020). However, only the BFR-LL group showed improvement in force steadiness for tracking performance in the post-test (p = 0.004), indicated by a smaller normalized change in force fluctuations compared to the BFR-HL group (p = 0.048). After training, the BFR-HL group activated motor units (MUs) with higher recruitment thresholds (p < 0.001) and longer inter-spike intervals (p = 0.002), contrary to the BFR-LL group, who activated MUs with lower recruitment thresholds (p < 0.001) and shorter inter-spike intervals (p < 0.001) during force-tracking. The discharge variability (p < 0.003) and common drive index (p < 0.002) of MUs were consistently reduced with training for the two groups.

conclusionsBFR-HL training led to greater strength gains, while BFR-LL training better improved force precision control due to activation of MUs with lower recruitment thresholds and higher discharge rates.

Indexed as

ElectromyographyResistance TrainingWristAdultBlood Flow Restriction TherapyFemaleHumansIsometric ContractionMaleMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthYoung AdultElectromyographyForce regulationHypoxiaMotor unitTraining load

Identifiers

PMID39030574
PMCPMC11264616

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.