Effects of low-intensity bench press training with restricted arm muscle blood flow on chest muscle hypertrophy: A pilot study

Abstract

Single-joint resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) results in significant increases in arm or leg muscle size and single-joint strength. However, the effect of multijoint BFR training on both blood flow restricted limb and non-restricted trunk muscles remain poorly understood. To examine the impact of BFR bench press training on hypertrophic response to non-restricted (chest) and restricted (upper-arm) muscles and multi-joint strength, 10 young men were randomly divided into either BFR training (BFR-T) or non-BFR training (CON-T) groups. They performed 30% of one repetition maximal (1-RM) bench press exercise (four sets, total 75 reps) twice daily, 6 days week(-1) for 2 weeks. During the exercise session, subjects in the BFR-T group placed elastic cuffs proximally on both arms, with incremental increases in external compression starting at 100 mmHg and ending at 160 mmHg. Before and after the training, triceps brachii and pectoralis major muscle thickness (MTH), bench press 1-RM and serum anabolic hormones were measured. Two weeks of training led to a significant increase (P<0.05) in 1-RM bench press strength in BFR-T (6%) but not in CON-T (-2%). Triceps and pectoralis major MTH increased 8% and 16% (P<0.01), respectively, in BFR-T, but not in CON-T (-1% and 2%, respectively). There were no changes in baseline concentrations of anabolic hormones in either group. These results suggest that BFR bench press training leads to significant increases in muscle size for upper arm and chest muscles and 1-RM strength.

Full text

Effects of low-intensity bench press training with restricted
arm muscle blood flow on chest muscle hypertrophy: a pilot
study
Tomohiro Yasuda, Satoshi Fujita, Riki Ogasawara, Yoshiaki Sato and Takashi Abe
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Chiba, Japan
Correspondence
Tomohiro Yasuda, PhD, Department of Human and
Engineered Environmental Studies, Graduate School
of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 5-1-
5, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba, 277-8563,
Japan
E-mail: yasuda@h.k.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Accepted for publication
Received 14 January 2010;
accepted 23 May 2010
Key words
muscle cross-sectional area; resistance training;
ultrasound; vascular occlusion
Summary
Single-joint resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) results in
significant increases in arm or leg muscle size and single-joint strength. However,
the effect of multijoint BFR training on both blood flow restricted limb and non-
restricted trunk muscles remain poorly understood. To examine the impact of BFR
bench press training on hypertrophic response to non-restricted (chest) and
restricted (upper-arm) muscles and multi-joint strength, 10 young men were
randomly divided into either BFR training (BFR-T) or non-BFR training (CON-T)
groups. They performed 30% of one repetition maximal (1-RM) bench press
exercise (four sets, total 75 reps) twice daily, 6 days week
)1
for 2 weeks. During the
exercise session, subjects in the BFR-T group placed elastic cuffs proximally on both
arms, with incremental increases in external compression starting at 100 mmHg and
ending at 160 mmHg. Before and after the training, triceps brachii and pectoralis
major muscle thickness (MTH), bench press 1-RM and serum anabolic hormones
were measured. Two weeks of training led to a significant increase (P<0.05) in
1-RM bench press strength in BFR-T (6%) but not in CON-T ()2%). Triceps and
pectoralis major MTH increased 8% and 16% (P<0.01), respectively, in BFR-T, but
not in CON-T ()1% and 2%, respectively). There were no changes in baseline
concentrations of anabolic hormones in either group. These results suggest that BFR
bench press training leads to significant increases in muscle size for upper arm and
chest muscles and 1-RM strength.
Introduction
Age-related skeletal muscle loss (sarcopenia) inhibits mobility
and increases the risk of developing several diseases such as
diabetes, osteoporosis and heart disease (Visser et al., 2002;
Guillet & Boirie, 2005). High-intensity resistance training can
induce appendicular and trunk muscle hypertrophy and
improve insulin resistance and type-2 diabetes in the elderly
(Frontera et al., 1988; Fiatarone et al., 1990; Dunstan et al.,
2002), suggesting that high-intensity resistance training leads to
preventing and ⁄or improving the sarcopenia in the elderly.
However, the high intensity required for muscle adaptation with
traditional resistance exercise may not be practical and may even
be dangerous when carried out without proper supervision in
the elderly.
In the past decade, several studies have reported that low-
intensity resistance training combined with muscular blood
flow restriction (BFR) elicits similar muscle hypertrophy as
traditional high-intensity resistance training regardless of age
(Takarada et al., 2000b, 2002; Abe et al., 2005; Fujita et al.,
2008). Because BFR requires the use of an elastic cuff that is
placed at the proximal end of the limbs, the restricted blood
flow is only applicable to appendicular muscles. Consequently,
previous BFR training studies have focused on the physiological
adaptations of appendicular muscles. However, the effect of
low-intensity BFR training on non-flow-restricted trunk mus-
culature has not been explored. Our previous study indicated
that neuromuscular activity during low-intensity BFR bench
press exercise increases not only in the blood flow restricted
arm muscle (triceps brachii) but also in non-restricted chest
muscle (pectoralis major) compared with same exercise without
BFR (Yasuda et al., 2006). We hypothesized that appendicular as
well as trunk muscle hypertrophy may be observed following
low-intensity multijoint BFR exercise training. Thus, the
purpose of this pilot study was to determine the impact of
low-intensity bench press exercise training with BFR on
muscular strength and hypertrophic responses in chest and
upper arm muscles.
Clin Physiol Funct Imaging (2010) 30, pp338–343 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-097X.2010.00949.x
2010 The Authors
Journal compilation 2010 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine 30, 5, 338–343338

Methods
Subjects
Ten young men (ages 23–38 years) volunteered to participate in
this study. Their standing height, body weight and one
repetition maximal (1-RM) bench press strength (mean ± SE)
were 172 ± 5 cm, 66 ± 7 kg and 58 ± 8 kg, respectively,
before training. The subjects in this study were physically active,
with four of 10 participated in regular aerobic-type exercise
(walking, jogging or cycling; 2–3 times per week for
approximately 30 min in duration). Four of all subjects had
light-to-moderate resistance training experience in performance
of the bench press, but none of the subjects had participated in
regular resistance training for a minimum of 1 year prior to the
start of the study. The subjects were randomly divided into
either a BFR training group (n= 5, BFR-T) or a non-BFR
training group (n= 5, CON-T). Each subject was informed of
the risks associated with the training and measurements and
gave written consent to participate in this study, which was
approved by the Ethics Committee of the University.
Training protocol
One week prior to training programme, all subjects completed an
orientation session to practice and familiarize with 1-RM bench
press testing and training equipment. During training programme,
each subject performed a supervised free weight flat bench press
exercise twice daily (morning and afternoon sessions, with at least
4 h between sessions), 6 days week
)1
for 2 weeks (total 24
sessions). Training intensity and volume were set at 30% of
predetermined1-RM and 75repetitions (30 repsfollowed by three
sets of 15 reps, with 30 s rest between sets), respectively and
remained constant throughout the training period.
Blood flow restriction
Subjects in the BFR-T group wore elastic cuffs around the most
proximal region of both arms during training. On the first day
of training, the cuffs were set at 30 mmHg and gradually
inflated to 100 mmHg (Day 1). The training air pressure was
increased by 10 mmHg each day until 160 mmHg (Day 7) was
reached. The restriction pressure was selected by a previous
report (Yasuda et al., 2009).
Measurements
Prior to starting the training programme and 3 days after the
final training session, several measurements were performed.
Maximal dynamic strength (1-RM) was assessed using a free
weight flat bench press test. The 1-RM was determined by
progressively increasing the weight lifted until the subject
failed to lift the weight (Abe et al., 2000). Muscle size was
measured using B-mode ultrasound (Aloka SSD-500, Tokyo,
Japan) at two anatomical sites [chest (at the site between third
and fourth of costa under the clavicle midpoint) and posterior
upper arm (at 60% distal between the lateral epicondyle of the
humerus and the acromial process of the scapula)] of the left
side as has been described previously (Abe et al., 1994, 2000).
Briefly, the measurements were carried out while the subjects
stood with their elbows extended and relaxed. A 5-MHz
scanning head was placed on the measurement site without
depressing the dermal surface. The subcutaneous adipose
tissue–muscle interface and the muscle–bone interface were
identified from the ultrasonic image, and the distance between
two interfaces was taken as muscle thickness (MTH; Fig. 1).
Ink markers on the triceps brachii and pectoralis major muscles
were used to ensure similar positioning over repeated MTH
measurement. The estimated coefficient of variation of MTH
measurement from test–retest was 1.6% for triceps brachii and
1.7% for pectoralis major muscle. Test–retest reliability
correlation coefficients (r) across sessions on different days
were 0.99 for triceps brachii and 0.98 for pectoralis major
MTH. This measurement was carried out each morning prior to
the training session and prior to the post-testing. Previous
studies have reported that MTH is strongly correlated with
muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) in limb muscle (Abe et al.,
(a) (b)
Figure 1 Typical ultrasonographic image (a) and magnetic image showing transverse section (b). Image a is vertical scan on the left of the chest.
Image b is transverse scan of the chest. AT, subcutaneous adipose tissue; Mus, skeletal muscle tissue; PM, pectoralis major muscle; I, intercostalis
internus muscle; Bone, costa.
Bench press training with blood flow restriction, T. Yasuda et al.
2010 The Authors
Journal compilation 2010 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine 30, 5, 338–343
339

1997; Miyatani et al., 2004) although there is no published
study for trunk muscle. To examine a relationship between
MTH and CSA (at the same site as MTH measurements) in
the pectoralis major muscle, another 20 young men were
measured using 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging (GE Signa,
Milwaukee, WI, USA). A T1-weighted, spin-echo, axial plane
sequence was performed with 1500-ms repetition time and a
17-ms echo time with 1.0-cm slice thickness at the site
between third and fourth of costa (Fig. 1). Subjects rested
quietly in the magnet bore in a spine position with their arms
extended. MTH of the chest was measured by ultrasound, at the
same sites as CSA measurements. Results indicate that MTH was
strongly correlated (r= 0.92, P<0.001) with pectoralis major
muscle CSA (Fig. 2), which suggested applicability of MTH
for evaluation of muscle size. Resting venous blood samples
were drawn from each subject on the same day prior to the
first training (Pre) and 2 days after the final training (post). All
blood samples were obtained at the same time of day (9:00–
10:00 AM) following an overnight fast (12–13 h). Serum
hormones [growth hormone (GH), insulin-like growth factor-
1 (IGF-1), and IGF-binding protein-3 (IGF-BP3)] and markers
of muscle damage (creatine phosphokinase and myoglobin)
were determined using a commercially available kit (SRL Co.
Ltd., Tokyo, Japan).
Statistical analyses
Results are expressed as means ± standard deviations (SD).
The data were tested for normality using Shapiro-Wilk test.
Because all variables were normally distributed, parametric
statistical analyses were performed. A two-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was used to
compare BFR-T and CON-T with the effects being group
(BFR-T and CON-T) and time (pre and post). Mean value of
per cent changes were calculated based on individual changes.
Per cent changes from baseline were also compared between
groups with studentÕs t-test. Statistical significance was set at
P<0.05.
Results
At baseline, before the training, there were no differences
between BFR-T and CON-T groups for age (25.8 ± 6.3 and
25.6 ± 3.2 years, respectively), standing height (1.72 ± 0.05
and 1.72 ± 0.05 m), body weight (65.4 ± 5.4 and 67.6 ±
7.9 kg), triceps brachii MTH (3.62 ± 0.39 and 3.67 ± 0.78 cm),
pectoralis major MTH (2.34 ± 1.9 and 2.24 ± 5.0 cm) and
bench press 1-RM (58.5 ± 5.5 and 59.0 ± 17.0 kg). There
was no change in body weight for either group following the
training.
After the training, MTH for triceps brachii and pectoralis
major were increased 8% (pre, 3.62 ± 4.2 cm; post,
3.89 ± 3.9 cm, P<0.05) and 16% (pre, 2.34 ± 1.9 cm; post,
2.76 ± 2.0 cm, P<0.05), respectively, in BFR-T group. No
significant changes in MTH were observed in CON-T group
()1% and 2% for triceps brachii and pectoralis major,
respectively). Increases in MTH for both triceps brachii and
pectoralis major were significantly larger in BFR-T group when
compared to CON-T group (Fig. 3). Per cent change in
muscular strength as assessed by bench press 1-RM was greater
in the BFR-T (6%) than that of the CON-T ()2%) (Fig. 4).
There were no significant changes in resting serum hormones
(GH, IGF-1 and IGF-BP3) or markers of muscle damage (CK and
myoglobin) for either group (Table 1).
Discussion
It has been demonstrated that muscle CSA ⁄volume in arm or leg
muscles increases after a low-intensity single joint resistance
training in which the blood flow to the working muscles are
restricted during exercise (Takarada et al., 2000b, 2002; Fujita
et al., 2008). For example, Fujita et al. (2008) have examined the
effect of 20% 1-RM-intensity knee extension training combined
with BFR on quadriceps muscle CSA ⁄volume and knee extension
strength in young men. They found that significant increases
in muscle CSA ⁄volume and maximal strength had occurred
after 6 days of twice daily training. In this study, we examined
the impact of low-intensity multijoint bench press exercise
training with BFR on hypertrophic responses to blood flow
restricted upper arm muscles as well as non-restricted chest
muscle. The results support our hypothesis that muscle hyper-
trophy in triceps brachii as well as pectoralis major were
observed following low-intensity multijoint BFR bench press
training. The muscle hypertrophy results from increased protein
accretion and from the accumulation of contractile protein,
which occurs when the balance between protein synthesis and
degradation shifts towards synthesis. A previous study (Fujita
et al., 2007) demonstrated that a single bout of 20% 1-RM
intensity BFR knee extension exercise increased both vastus
lateralis muscle protein synthesis and the Akt ⁄mTOR signalling
pathway in young men. These anabolic responses may contrib-
ute significantly to BFR training induced muscle hypertrophy in
both blood flow restricted upper arm and non-restricted chest
muscles.
Figure 2 The relationship between muscle cross-sectional area mea-
sured by magnetic resonance imaging and muscle thickness by B-mode
ultrasound.
Bench press training with blood flow restriction, T. Yasuda et al.
2010 The Authors
Journal compilation 2010 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine 30, 5, 338–343
340

The reasons for low-intensity BFR training-induced increase
in muscle protein metabolism and muscle hypertrophy, espe-
cially in blood flow non-restricted muscle, are poorly under-
stood, but several possibilities are presented. A major factor for
the blood flow non-restricted muscle hypertrophy may be
increased in muscle activity and apparent elevation in contrac-
tion intensity during training session. In this study, our subjects
were measured integrated electromyography (iEMG) activity in
both upper arm and chest muscle during bench press exercise
with and without BFR (Data are not shown). The results are
similar to our previous investigation (Yasuda et al., 2006) that
iEMG activity is synergistically increased in blood flow restricted
arm muscle as well as non-restricted chest ⁄deltoid muscles
during BFR bench press exercise. The greater muscle activation
in chest ⁄deltoid muscles may have taken place to compensate
for the deficit in force development with triceps brachii muscle
during BFR bench press. Increased muscle activation during low
external load (30% 1-RM) with BFR appears to result in greater
internal activation intensity (50–90% 1-RM at fourth set) such
that activation is comparable to that observed when training at
high external load.
Another possible factor for the muscle hypertrophy observed
in the blood flow non-restricted chest muscle might be the acute
increases in endogenous anabolic hormones, such as GH and
IGF-1, during and after exercise training session. Several low-
intensity BFR exercise studies (Takarada et al., 2000a; Abe et al.,
2005, 2006; Reeves et al., 2006; Fujita et al., 2007) have
observed that serum GH as well as IGF-1 increases during and
(b)
(a)
Figure 3 Changes in muscle thickness of the triceps brachii and
pectoralis major muscles following the training period. Data are
means ± SD. BFR-T is blood flow restriction group (filled symbols), and
CON-T is non-blood flow restriction group (unfilled symbols).
*Different from CON-T, P<0.05.
Figure 4 Per cent changes in one repetition maximal bench press
strength following the training period. Data are means ± SD. BFR-T is
blood flow restriction group (filled symbols), and CON-T is non-blood
flow restriction group (unfilled symbols). *Different from CON-T,
P<0.05.
Table 1 Changes in resting serum hormones and markers for muscle
damage following the training.
BFR-T CON-T
Pre Post Pre Post
GH (ng ml
)1
) 0.37 (0.59) 1.86 (2.21) 0.22 (0.32) 0.77 (1.55)
IGF-I (ng ml
)1
) 241 (44) 229 (51) 231 (18) 235 (28)
IGF-BP3 (lgml
)1
) 2.4 (0.1) 2.3 (0.2) 2.3 (0.4) 2.4 (0.3)
T (ng ml
)1
) 8.0 (2.4) 6.8 (1.4) 4.8 (1.8) 5.4 (1.7)
CPK (IU l
)1
) 340 (457) 280 (237) 290 (294) 312 (267)
MYO (ng ml
)1
) 113 (152) 40 (20) 40 (16) 42 (13)
Values are means (SD).
BFR-T, blood flow restriction training group; CON-T, non-blood flow
restriction training group; GH, growth hormone; IGF-I, insulin-like
growth factor-1; IGF-BP3, insulin-like growth factor–binding protein-3;
T, total testosterone; CPK, creatine phosphokinase; MYO, myoglobin.
Bench press training with blood flow restriction, T. Yasuda et al.
2010 The Authors
Journal compilation 2010 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine 30, 5, 338–343
341

after the exercise session although the present study did not
measure acute hormonal response. The exercise-induced
increase in blood GH stimulates hepatic production of IGF-1
resulting in elevated circulating blood IGF-1 and stimulates
muscle protein synthesis (Borst et al., 2001; Marx et al., 2001).
Furthermore, circulating GH directly stimulates endogenous
muscle production of IGF-1 (Florini et al., 1996). Recently,
Madarame et al. (2008) demonstrated that 10 weeks of low-
intensity arm curl resistance training without BFR increased
biceps muscle size when it was combined with low-intensity
BFR knee extension resistance exercise, indicating a Ôcross-
transferÕeffect for the growth of other skeletal muscles.
It was anticipated that resting serum IGF-I concentration
would increase following BFR bench press training, because our
previous study had reported increases in resting serum IGF-I
following BFR resistance training at same training frequency
(Abe et al., 2005). However, our current results showed that
serum IGF-I did not change following BFR training. The reasons
are not clear, but it might be related to the training volume or
type of the exercise. To date, there has been no systematic study
on the interactions of altering frequency, intensity, duration or
type of BFR training. More work is needed to understand how
these variables would affect muscle adaptation by the BFR
training.
In this study, resting blood markers for muscle damage (CPK
and myoglobin) were not elevated on average. Both pre- and
post-training values showed large variability, possibly associated
with physical activity (only one subject in each group)
performed outside of the BFR training. Previous studies reported
that there are no changes in markers of muscle damage and
oxidative stress between before and after acute bout of low-
intensity BFR exercise (Abe et al., 2005, 2006; Fujita et al., 2008;
Goldfarb et al., 2008). Therefore, the results of this study along
with the previous studies suggest that the rapid response of
muscle hypertrophy following low-intensity BFR training is not
associated with cell swelling induced by muscle damage or
inflammation of the muscle tissues.
In this study, a per cent increase in 1-RM strength is not larger
than that of increase in muscle size. Previous studies have
reported that relative strength (i.e. the maximal strength per unit
of muscle size) of the knee extensor and elbow flexor muscle
did not change significantly between pre- and post-training
following low-intensity BFR training (Takarada et al., 2000b,
2002; Abe et al., 2006; Fujita et al., 2008). This suggests that
changes in muscle strength are more closely tied to changes in
muscle hypertrophy as opposed to change in neural adaptations.
Taken together, these data suggest that a main contributor of
increased muscle strength after BFR training is the increase in
muscle size (physiological muscle CSA), which surpass the
neural adaptation such as fibre recruitment patterns.
In conclusion, low-intensity bench press training combined
with BFR of the arms leads to significant increases in 1-RM
bench press strength and muscle size of both the blood flow
restricted upper arm muscles as well as non-restricted pectoralis
major muscle.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the students who participated in this study.
References
Abe T, Kondo M, Kawakami Y, Fukunaga T. Prediction equations for
body composition of Japanese adults by B-mode ultrasound. Am J Hum
Biol (1994); 6: 613–618.
Abe T, Kawakami Y, Suzuki Y, Gunji A, Fukunaga T. Effects of 20 days
bed rest on muscle morphology. J Gravit Physiol (1997); 4: S10–S14.
Abe T, deHoyos DV, Pollock ML, Garzarella L. Time course for strength
and muscle thickness changes following upper and lower body
resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol (2000); 81: 174–180.
Abe T, Yasuda T, Midorikawa T, Sato Y, Kearns CF, Inoue K, Koizumi K,
Ishii N. Skeletal muscle size and circulating IGF-1 are increased after
two weeks of twice daily ‘‘KAATSU’’ resistance training. Int J KAATSU
Training Res (2005); 1: 6–12.
Abe T, Kearns CF, Sato Y. Muscle size and strength are increased
following walk training with restricted venous blood flow from the
leg muscle, Kaatsu-walk training. J Appl Physiol (2006); 100: 1460–
1466.
Borst SE, deHoyos DV, Grazarella L, Vincent K, Pollock BH, Lowenthal
DT, Pollock ML. Effects of resistance training on insulin-like growth
factor-I and IGF binding proteins. Med Sci Sports Exerc (2001); 41: 648–
653.
Dunstan DW, Daly RM, Owen N, Jolley D, De Courten M, Shaw J,
Zimmet P. High-intensity resistance training improves glycemic
control in older patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care (2002); 25:
1729–1736.
Fiatarone MA, Marks EC, Ryan ND, Meredith CN, Lipsitz LA, Evans WJ.
High-intensity strength training in nonagenarians. Effects on skeletal
muscle. JAMA (1990); 263: 3029–3034.
Florini JR, Ewton DZ, Coolican SA. Growth hormone and insulin-like
growth factor system in myogenesis. Endocr Rev (1996); 17: 481–517.
Frontera WR, Meredith CN, OÕReilly KP, Knuttgen HG, Evans WJ.
Strength conditioning in older men: skeletal muscle hypertrophy and
improved function. J Appl Physiol (1988); 64: 1038–1044.
Fujita S, Abe T, Drummond MJ, Cadenas JG, Dreyer HC, Sato Y, Volpi E,
Rasmussen BB. Blood flow restriction during low-intensity resistance
exercise increases S6K1 phosphorylation and muscle protein synthesis.
J Appl Physiol (2007); 103: 903–910.
Fujita T, Brechue WF, Kurita K, Sato Y, Abe T. Increased muscle volume
and strength following six days of low-intensity resistance training
with restricted muscle blood flow. Int J KAATSU Training Res (2008); 4:
1–8.
Goldfarb AH, Garten RS, Chee PD, Cho C, Reeves GV, Hollander DB,
Thomas C, Aboudehen KS, Francois M, Kraemer RR. Resistance
exercise effects on blood glutathione status and plasma protein car-
bonyls: influence of partial vascular occlusion. Eur J Appl Physiol (2008);
104: 813–819.
Guillet C, Boirie Y. Insulin resistance: a contributing factor to age-related
muscle loss? Diabates Metab (2005); 31: 5S20–5S26.
Madarame H, Neya M, Ochi E, Nakazato K, Sato Y, Ishii N. Cross-transfer
effects of resistance training with blood flow restriction. Med Sci Sports
Exerc (2008); 40: 258–263.
Marx JO, Ratamess NA, Nindl BC, Gotshalk LA, Volek JS, Dohi K, Bush
JA, Gomez AL, Mazzetti SA, Fleck SJ, Hakkinen K, Newton RU,
Kraemer WJ. Low-volume circuit versus high-volume periodized
resistance training in women. Med Sci Sports Exerc (2001); 33: 635–
643.
Bench press training with blood flow restriction, T. Yasuda et al.
2010 The Authors
Journal compilation 2010 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine 30, 5, 338–343
342

Miyatani M, Kanehisa H, Ito M, Kawakami Y, Fukunaga T. The accuracy
of volume estimates using ultrasound muscle thickness measurements
in different muscle groups. Eur J Appl Physiol (2004); 91: 264–272.
Reeves GV, Kraemer RR, Hollander DB, Clavier J, Thomas C, Francois M,
Castracane VD. Comparison of hormone responses following light
resistance exercise with partial vascular occlusion and moderately
difficult resistance exercise without occlusion. J Appl Physiol (2006);
101: 1616–1622.
Takarada Y, Nakamura Y, Aruga S, Onda T, Miyazaki S, Ishii N. Rapid
increase in plasma growth hormone after low-intensity resistance
exercise with vascular occlusion. J Appl Physiol (2000a); 88: 61–65.
Takarada Y, Takazawa H, Sato Y, Takebayashi S, Tanaka Y, Ishii N.
Effects of resistance exercise combined with moderate vascular
occlusion on muscular function in humans. J Appl Physiol (2000b); 88:
2097–2106.
Takarada Y, Sato Y, Ishii N. Effects of resistance exercise combined with
vascular occlusion on muscle function in athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol
(2002); 86: 308–314.
Visser M, Kritchevsky SB, Goodpaster BH, Newman AB, Nevitt M,
Stamm E, Harris TB. Leg muscle mass and composition in relation to
lower extremity performance in men and women aged 70 to 79: The
Health, Aging and Body Composition Study. J Am Geriatr Soc (2002);
50: 897–904.
Yasuda T, Fujita T, Miyagi Y, Kubota Y, Sato Y, Nakajima T, Bemben
MG, Abe T. Electromyographic responses of arm and chest muscle
during bench press exercise with and without KAATSU. Int J KAATSU
Training Res (2006); 2: 15–18.
Yasuda T, Brechue WF, Fujita T, Sato Y, Abe T. Muscle activation during
low-intensity muscle contractions with restricted blood flow. J Sports
Sci (2009); 27: 479–489.
Bench press training with blood flow restriction, T. Yasuda et al.
2010 The Authors
Journal compilation 2010 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine 30, 5, 338–343
343