Repeated-sprint training with blood flow restriction does not provide additional benefits in repeated-sprint ability

J. Mckee; O. Girard; J. Peiffer; B. Scott

doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2023.08.133

Introduction: Sustaining performance over a series of sprints (termed repeated-sprint ability [RSA]) is crucial for team-sport athletes performing repeated short-duration sprints (≤ 10 s) interspersed by brief recovery periods (≤ 60 s). Repeated-sprint training (RST) augments physiological determinants of RSA (i.e., energy supply and metabolite removal) which are further improved with systemic hypoxia (i.e., reduced fraction of inspired oxygen). However, systemic hypoxia interventions are costly and not easily accessible. Blood flow restriction (BFR) is an alternative hypoxic strategy utilizing inflatable cuffs on the legs that limit arterial inflow of blood and mostly occlude venous return. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate adaptive responses in RSA and physiology for team-sport players following 3 weeks of RST with BFR compared to unrestricted training. Methods: Twenty-six adult male amateur and semi-professional team-sport players (22 Australian Rules footballers, 1 basketballer, 1 mixed netballer, and 1 gridiron player) volunteered for participation. Participants first completed a baseline testing session assessing body composition, maximal isometric strength, rate of force development and muscular endurance of the quadriceps, and maximal aerobic capacity. Within 7 days, participants completed a second testing session examining cycling RSA and anaerobic capacity. Participants were then randomized into groups with BFR (n = 13) applied continuously (i.e., excluding between-set rest periods) or without BFR (n = 13) for 9 sessions of cycling RST (3 x [5-7 x 5-second maximal sprints:25-second passive recovery], 3-minute rest between sets) over 3 weeks. Following the final training session both testing sessions were repeated within 7 days. Linear mixed models were used to compare differences in means of dependent variables between conditions, timepoints and/or sets, and an alpha level of p < 0.05 was used to determine significance. Results: Mean power output during the cycling RSA and anaerobic capacity test improved (p < 0.002) in both BFR (dz = 0.49 and 0.57, respectively) and Non-BFR (dz = 0.86 and 0.83, respectively) groups after training, without between-group differences (p = 0.801 and 0.500, respectively). Leg lean-mass also increased (p < 0.001) in both BFR and Non-BFR (dz = 1.62 and 0.38, respectively) groups after training, without between-group differences (p = 0.801). Maximal aerobic capacity and maximal quadriceps isometric strength remained unchanged after training in both groups (p = 0.109 and 0.152, respectively). Discussion: Cycling RST is an effective strategy to improve RSA, anaerobic capacity, and leg lean-mass in a short preparation period in team-sport players. Performance improvements following RST are likely due to improved phosphocreatine resynthesis, muscle buffering capacity and upregulation of anaerobic metabolism. However, 3 weeks of cycling RST did not improve maximal aerobic capacity and maximal quadriceps isometric strength. Therefore, in contrast to previous research examining systemic hypoxia, the addition of BFR to RST did not provide further benefits to RSA or physiology potentially due to the brief training duration. Impact/Application to the field: Just 3 weeks of cycling RST improved RSA in team-sport athletes, establishing an effective prescription strategy for practitioners to develop sprint performance during a specialised training block. However, there was no additional benefit of completing RST with BFR compared to unrestricted training. Declaration: My co-authors and I acknowledge that we have no conflict of interest of relevance to the submission of this abstract.

Repeated-sprint training with blood flow restriction does not provide additional benefits in repeated-sprint ability

Files and links (1)

Abstract

Details

Metrics