Contralateral training effects of low-intensity blood-flow restricted and high-intensity unilateral resistance training.

purposeDetermine whether unilateral low-intensity blood-flow restricted (LIBFR) exercise is as effective as high-intensity (HI) resistance training for improving contralateral muscle strength.

methodsThirty healthy adults (20-30 years) were randomly allocated to the following dynamic plantar-flexion training interventions: HI [75% of one-repetition maximum (1RM), 4 sets, 10 reps] and LIBFR [20% of 1RM, 4 sets, 30 + 15 + 15 + 15 reps]. Evoked V-wave and H-reflex recruitment curves, as well as maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and panoramic ultrasound assessments of the trained and untrained soleus muscles were obtained pre-training, post-4 weeks of training and post-4 weeks of detraining.

resultsBoth interventions failed to increase contralateral MVC and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA). Yet, contralateral rate of torque development (RTD) was enhanced by both regimens (12-26%) and this was accompanied by heightened soleus EMG within the first milliseconds of the rising torque-time curve (14-22%; p < 0.05). These improvements were dissipated after detraining. Contralateral adaptations were not accompanied by changes in V-wave or H-reflex excitability. Conversely, LIBFR and HI elicited a similar magnitude of ipsilateral increase in MVC, RTD and CSA post-training (10-18%). Improvements in V-wave amplitude and soleus EMG were limited to the trained leg assigned to LIBFR training (p < 0.05). While gains in strength and CSA remained preserved post-4 weeks of detraining, this did not occur with RTD.

conclusionSince gains in RTD were similar between interventions, our findings indicate that both training regimens can be used interchangeably for improving contralateral rapid torque production. Ultimately, this may be beneficial in circumstances of limb immobilization after injury or surgery.