Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- blood flow restriction (2) (remove)
Institute
Background: The effects of blood flow restriction (training) may serve as a model of peripheral artery disease. In both conditions, circulating micro RNAs (miRNAs) are suggested to play a crucial role during exercise-induced arteriogenesis. We aimed to determine whether the profile of circulating miRNAs is altered after acute resistance training during blood flow restriction (BFR) as compared with unrestricted low- and high-volume training, and we hypothesized that miRNA that are relevant for arteriogenesis are affected after resistance training.
Methods: Eighteen healthy volunteers (aged 25 ± 2 years) were enrolled in this three-arm, randomized-balanced crossover study. The arms were single bouts of leg flexion/extension resistance training at (1) 70% of the individual single-repetition maximum (1RM), (2) at 30% of the 1RM, and (3) at 30% of the 1RM with BFR (artificially applied by a cuff at 300 mm Hg). Before the first exercise intervention, the individual 1RM (N) and the blood flow velocity (m/s) used to validate the BFR application were determined. During each training intervention, load-associated outcomes (fatigue, heart rate, and exhaustion) were monitored. Acute effects (circulating miRNAs, lactate) were determined using pre-and post-intervention measurements.
Results: All training interventions increased lactate concentration and heart rate (p < 0.001). The high-intensity intervention (HI) resulted in a higher lactate concentration than both lower-intensity training protocols with BFR (LI-BFR) and without (LI) (LI, p = 0.003; 30% LI-BFR, p = 0.008). The level of miR-143-3p was down-regulated by LI-BFR, and miR-139-5p, miR-143-3p, miR-195-5p, miR-197-3p, miR-30a-5p, and miR-10b-5p were up-regulated after HI. The lactate concentration and miR-143-3p expression showed a significant positive linear correlation (p = 0.009, r = 0.52). A partial correlation (intervention partialized) showed a systematic impact of the type of training (LI-BFR vs. HI) on the association (r = 0.35 remaining after partialization of training type).
Conclusions: The strong effects of LI-BFR and HI on lactate- and arteriogenesis-associated miRNA-143-3p in young and healthy athletes are consistent with an important role of this particular miRNA in metabolic processes during (here) artificial blood flow restriction. BFR may be able to mimic the occlusion of a larger artery which leads to increased collateral flow, and it may therefore serve as an external stimulus of arteriogenesis.
Background: The vascular effects of training under blood flow restriction (BFR) in healthy persons can serve as a model for the exercise mechanism in lower extremity arterial disease (LEAD) patients. Both mechanisms are, inter alia, characterized by lower blood flow in the lower limbs. We aimed to describe and compare the underlying mechanism of exercise-induced effects of disease- and external application-BFR methods. Methods: We completed a narrative focus review after systematic literature research. We included only studies on healthy participants or those with LEAD. Both male and female adults were considered eligible. The target intervention was exercise with a reduced blood flow due to disease or external application. Results: We identified 416 publications. After the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 39 manuscripts were included in the vascular adaption part. Major mechanisms involving exercise-mediated benefits in treating LEAD included: inflammatory processes suppression, proinflammatory immune cells, improvement of endothelial function, remodeling of skeletal muscle, and additional vascularization (arteriogenesis). Mechanisms resulting from external BFR application included: increased release of anabolic growth factors, stimulated muscle protein synthesis, higher concentrations of heat shock proteins and nitric oxide synthase, lower levels in myostatin, and stimulation of S6K1. Conclusions: A main difference between the two comparators is the venous blood return, which is restricted in BFR but not in LEAD. Major similarities include the overall ischemic situation, the changes in microRNA (miRNA) expression, and the increased production of NOS with their associated arteriogenesis after training with BFR.