Manipulating Internal and External Loads During Repeated Cycling Sprints: A Comparison of Continuous and Intermittent Blood Flow Restriction.

Mckee, JR, Girard, O, Peiffer, JJ, and Scott, BR. Manipulating internal and external loads during repeated cycling sprints: A comparison of continuous and intermittent blood flow restriction. J Strength Cond Res 38(1): 47-54, 2024-This study examined the impact of blood flow restriction (BFR) application method (continuous vs. intermittent) during repeated-sprint exercise (RSE) on performance, physiological, and perceptual responses. Twelve adult male semi-professional Australian football players completed 4 RSE sessions (3 × [5 × 5-second maximal sprints:25-second passive recovery], 3-minute rest between the sets) with BFR applied continuously (C-BFR; excluding interset rest periods), intermittently during only sprints (I-BFR WORK ), or intraset rest periods (I-BFR REST ) or not at all (Non-BFR). An alpha level of p < 0.05 was used to determine significance. Mean power output was greater for Non-BFR (  p < 0.001, dz = 1.58 ), I-BFR WORK (  p = 0.002, dz = 0.63 ), and I-BFR REST (  p = 0.003, dz = 0.69 ) than for C-BFR and for Non-BFR (  p = 0.043, dz = 0.55 ) compared with I-BFR REST . Blood lactate concentration (  p = 0.166) did not differ between the conditions. Mean oxygen consumption was higher during Non-BFR (  p < 0.001, dz = 1.29 and 2.31; respectively) and I-BFR WORK ( p < 0.001, dz = 0.74 and 1.63; respectively) than during I-BFR REST and C-BFR and for I-BFR REST (  p = 0.002, dz = 0.57) compared with C-BFR. Ratings of perceived exertion were greater for I-BFR REST (  p = 0.042, dz = 0.51) and C-BFR (  p = 0.011, dz = 0.90) than for Non-BFR and during C-BFR (  p = 0.023, dz = 0.54) compared with I-BFR WORK . Applying C-BFR or I-BFR REST reduced mechanical output and cardiorespiratory demands of RSE and were perceived as more difficult. Practitioners should be aware that BFR application method influences internal and external demands during RSE.