Blood Flow Restriction
Training and the Physique
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3+5UxwP5IFlAqDew2n94MKeAq5OCh82nAGuDY89sAIAvlbR2ZgbfHQw== on 10/07/2020
Athlete: A Practical
Research-Based Guide to
Maximizing Muscle Size
Nicholas Rolnick, DPT, MS1 and Brad J. Schoenfeld, PhD, CSCS, CSPS, FNSCA2
1
The Human Performance Mechanic, PHLEX NYC, New York, New York; and 2Health Sciences Department, CUNY
Lehman College, Bronx, New York
ABSTRACT
Emerging evidence indicates that low
load blood flow restriction (BFR) training
is an effective strategy to increase mus-
cular adaptations. Yet, it remains ques-
tionable as to whether combining BFR
with traditional resistance training can
potentiate hypertrophic adaptations. The
purpose of this article is to provide an
evidence-based review of current
research on the topic including underly-
ing mechanisms of BFR training and
draw practical conclusions as to how
BFR can be applied by physique athletes
to optimize increases in muscle mass.
INTRODUCTION
odern day blood flow restric-
M
tion (BFR) training was discov-
ered in 1966 by Yoshiaki Sato,
who called it KAATSU (“added pres-
sure”) training (76). In the 54 years since
his discovery, BFR training has been
Address correspondence to Brad J. Schoen-
feld, brad@workout911.com.
22 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2020
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
studied in hundreds of published articles (70+% 1RM) lifting, making it an alter-
and is used by a wide variety of popula- native for physique athletes seeking to
tions—from the injured (29,40) to the phy- maximize muscle growth without addi-
sique athlete looking to maximize muscle tional joint stress (21,53). This article will
growth during contest preparation (58). provide an evidence-based review of cur-
rent research on the resistance-training
BFR training involves use of a compres-
sive cuff wrapped around the proximal benefits of BFR exercise with respect to
hypertrophy and draw practical conclu-
portion of the limb so as to partially
sions as to how the strategy can be
reduce arterial flow and completely
applied by physique athletes to optimize
restrict venous return (71). As a result,
increases in muscle mass.
blood pools in the extremity distal to
the cuff, altering the local muscular envi-
BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION
ronment. The reduction in blood flow
TRAINING MECHANISMS OVERVIEW
from the applied pressure decreases oxy-
(HYPERTROPHY FOCUSED)
gen delivery, challenging local energy
The mechanisms underlying BFR RTare
metabolism and reducing the time
still contentious but appear to be some-
needed to reach volitional failure during
what modulated by similar processes as
aerobic training and resistance training
free-flow exercise. Skeletal muscle hyper-
(RT) compared with similar exercise
trophy occurs when net protein balance
without restriction (27,28,99). Because
is positive, providing a favorable environ-
of the unique metabolic environment in
ment to induce muscle growth (16). Mus-
the limb from the compressive cuff, BFR
cle growth appears to be mediated by
training is commonly prescribed with
loads as light as 20% one repetition max-
imum (1RM) (71). Low-load RT with
KEY WORDS:
blood flow restriction exercise; bodybuild-
BFR can provide similar increases in
ing; competition; muscle hypertrophy
muscle mass compared with heavier
Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
 mechanistic target of rapamycin complex
1 (mTORC1), a molecular nodal point in
the anabolic molecular intracellular sig-
naling pathway (36). Sufficient
stimulation of skeletal muscle via RT in-
duces post-exercise increases in
mTORC1 expression, eventually leading
to visible increases in muscle size with
continued training (32,63). Both heavy-
and light-load training, with and without
BFR, performed to volitional failure have
shown to induce significant mTORC1
expression and, in longitudinal studies,
are reported to produce similar increases
in muscle size in various populations
(18,20,21,53). However, low-load exer-
cise that is work-matched to BFR (i.e.,
30-15-15-15 repetitions) does not appre-
ciably increase mTORC1 levels nor alter
mTORC1 downstream protein kinase
molecules such as S6 kinase beta-1
(S6K1), and thus, these protocols are infe-
rior in producing appreciable gains in
muscle size (32,33), conceivably because
the intensity of effort is not sufficiently
challenging to evoke a robust hypertro-
phic stimulus. Finally, administering
mTORC1’s antagonist, rapamycin, blunts
the muscle protein synthesis (MPS)
response to BFR exercise, highlighting
the importance of this pathway during
BFR exercise (36). Thus, it seems that
mTORC1 expression is crucial to the
long-term hypertrophic response to
BFR training regardless of the exact
mechanisms that differentiate low-load
BFR versus high-load traditional training.
RESISTANCE TRAINING:
MECHANISMS UNDERLYING
HYPERTROPHY
Current theory proposes 2 primary
mechanisms underlying the benefits
observed with low-load RT with BFR:
metabolite-induced accelerated fatigue
and cellular swelling. Both mechanisms
have the capacity to create an anabolic
environment in the muscle to augment
MPS responses to exercise and are dis-
cussed in the following subsections.
METABOLITE-INDUCED FATIGUE
Metabolite-induced accelerated fatigue
describes the phenomena that occur
when BFR is applied to an exercis-
ing limb. Byproducts of muscular
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
contractions such as lactate, hydrogen
ions (H+), ATP, and inorganic phos-
phates are produced and are unable to
exit the limb through the venous system
due to the restrictive cuff (56). These me-
tabolites interfere with the excitation–
contraction mechanism causing earlier
recruitment of type 2 muscle fibers rela-
tive to the same exercise being performed
in free-flow conditions (22,98). As fatigue
accumulates from the metabolic stress,
muscle contraction velocity slows and
muscle activation increases (85), ulti-
mately stimulating anabolic processes.
Metabolites also stimulate the group III–
IV afferents in and around the muscle
fiber during contractions to promote
increased blood flow to the exercising
muscle in an effort to reduce peripheral
fatigue accumulation (loss of the muscle
fiber’s ability to create force) (5). It is
theorized that group III–IV afferents
can stimulate additional motor unit
recruitment through activation of the fu-
simotor neuron-muscle spindle-motor
neuron pathway so as to ensure force
remains steady during repeated muscular
contractions (34). The group III–IVaffer-
ents also have synapses onto the central
nervous system (CNS) and are postu-
lated to play a role in subjective increases
in perception of effort during exercise
(25,70). Higher levels of effort during
fatiguing contractions have been thought
to correspond with type II muscle fiber
recruitment (70). Importantly, when
free-flow low-load exercise is performed
with and without BFR to failure, both
report very high levels of effort and local-
ized muscle pain, likely by the combined
effects of the accumulated metabolites
stimulating group III–IV afferents and
the resultant changes in CNS activation
(11,25,95,96).
It is not clear whether metabolites them-
selves contribute to an exercise-induced
hypertrophic response. Emerging evi-
dence indicates that lactate mediates
anabolic processes both in vitro
(67,68,92,100) and in vivo (68,92). These
results may be attributed at least in part
to a lactate-induced inhibition of histone
deacetylase activity (49), which serves as
a negative regulator of muscle growth.
Moreover, the buildup of H+ may
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
facilitate greater type I fiber hypertrophy
by impairing calcium binding in type II
fibers and thereby placing a greater bur-
den on type I fibers to maintain force
output as metabolically taxing exercise
continues (35). This may help to explain
emerging research showing that low-
load BFR elicits preferential hypertrophy
of slow-twitch muscle fibers (8,9,43).
Further research is warranted to better
elucidate mechanistic underpinnings of
adaptations achieved with low-load
BFR training.
CELL SWELLING
Cell swelling describes the acute
increase in muscle thickness that results
from accumulation of fluid in a limb
due to a lack of venous return (56). Fluid
is believed to shift from the plasma into
the muscle cell due to osmolality gradi-
ent differences (91). Fluid accumulation
during and after exercise is believed to
be due to decreased oxygen availability,
the accumulation of metabolites, and
subsequent increases in reactive hyper-
emia (56,62,104). These factors have
been linked to earlier type II muscle
fiber recruitment (42,73).
Increases in muscle thickness after exer-
cise have been correlated with long-
term muscle hypertrophy in free-flow
and BFR exercise (28,44). BFR training
has been shown to significantly increase
cell swelling over work-matched con-
trols (103) while producing similar levels
during exercise to failure (6,15,28,108)
and high-load training (3,30,44). Thus,
exercise with BFR can produce acute
increases in cell swelling that hypothet-
ically can contribute to meaningful long-
term changes in muscle size.
Cell swelling is believed to act through
stimulation of an intrinsic volume sen-
sor in the muscle fiber that, when
stretched, begins the process of MPS
(56). When fluid is trapped in the limb
during and after exercise, the cytoskel-
etal matrix becomes stressed, eventu-
ally leading to activation of anabolic
intracellular signaling pathways (56).
It is questionable whether cell swelling
alone is anabolic in vivo because recent
research investigating a passive cell
swelling protocol performed with no
23
 BFR Training and the Physique Athlete
exercise failed to increase mTORC1
expression (66). However, long-term
passive cell swelling applications have
been shown to attenuate or completely
prevent disuse atrophy (47,86), lending
credence to the notion that cell swell-
ing may provide a low-level hypertro-
phic stimulus sufficient to maintain
neutral net protein balance for a period.
BFR RESEARCH ON ATHLETES,
WELL-TRAINED INDIVIDUALS, AND
PHYSIQUE COMPETITORS
To date, the research on using BFR
with physique athletes is sparse (1 case
report). Therefore, this section will
cover the relevant research pertaining
to optimizing hypertrophy in
resistance-trained individuals and pro-
fessional athletes using BFR training,
drawing parallels (when appropriate)
to the physique athlete.
To the authors’ knowledge, the case
report by Loenneke et al. (58) on
a 22-year-old competitive male body-
builder is the only published article
using BFR with physique athletes. This
case report provides some unique in-
sights into the potential applications
and benefits of BFR training in this
population, especially during contest
preparation. The article describes
a 22-year-old male bodybuilder who
developed knee pain 2 weeks before
his bodybuilding show. The individual
reported experiencing a pop in his right
knee, and a subsequent MRI revealed
an osteochondral fracture; a surgical
date was then scheduled after compe-
tition. The individual decided to use
low-load BFR RT for his legs twice
a week for the remainder of his contest
preparation instead of withdrawing
from the show. His lower-body train-
ing routine exclusively comprised pain-
free low-load BFR training performed
predominantly in a 30-15-15-15
scheme (30 reps on the first set, fol-
lowed by 3 sets of 15 repetitions) twice
weekly, although he did occasionally
incorporate failure training (58). The
individual ended up placing top 5 in
his show and was able to exercise
pain-free; he ultimately postponed his
scheduled surgical date due to limited
loss of functional ability (no pain
24 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2020
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
walking) and lack of perceived loss in
thigh hypertrophy (58). A follow-up
MRI revealed significant healing of
his osteochondral fracture, and with
conservative nonsurgical treatment,
the individual was able to return to
high-load training. This report pro-
vides limited evidence that BFR can
be successfully used in competitive
bodybuilders deep into contest prepa-
ration despite the presence of lower
extremity injuries that would impede
heavy-load training.
There does seem to be a superior ben-
efit to maximizing hypertrophy in rec-
reationally active individuals when
combining low-load BFR (30% 1RM)
with heavy loads (75% 1RM) in a lifting
program. Yasuda et al. (106) observed
statistically significant increases of
+7.2% muscle cross-sectional area
(CSA) of the triceps brachii when com-
bining low-load BFR and heavy lifting
compared with +4.4% when perform-
ing low-load BFR alone in recreation-
ally active men over a 6-week study
period, highlighting the additive effects
of both types of training when per-
formed concurrently. However, well-
trained athletes may respond differ-
ently due to their RT history.
Previous research has shown that a 24-
week routine consisting of heavy
elbow flexion exercise in competitive
male and female bodybuilders did not
substantially increase muscle CSA of
the elbow flexors (4). It is important
to note that although the sample size
was small (n 5 10), half of the partic-
ipants (3 males and 2 females) reported
using anabolic steroids concurrently
throughout the program. Therefore, it
seems that a single-mode approach
(heavy lifting—6RM to 10RM) typical
of bodybuilding programs may not be
able to increase hypertrophy to a signif-
icant extent after a period (5.5+ years
training experience on average in the
bodybuilders in the aforementioned
study), even with the use of anabolic
agents. Multimode approaches using
a combination of lower and higher rep-
etition schemes such as during low-
load BFR training (i.e., 30-15-15-15)
could theoretically increase muscle size
over low-repetition training alone (i.e.,
heavy training in the 6–10RM range)
due to stimulation of the spectrum of
muscle fiber types, although this
hypothesis remains somewhat
speculative.
BFR training may be an appealing
modality to integrate into the resis-
tance exercise programs of physique
athletes due to the unique metabolic
stress it provides to the musculoskele-
tal system when training with lighter
loads and intensities not typical of
bodybuilding routines (69). The meta-
bolic stress produced from BFR exer-
cise may expose muscle fibers
(particularly type I fibers) to new
recruitment demands not obtained
from traditional heavy-load training
and thus provide a way to further aug-
ment muscle hypertrophy in highly
trained athletes. Indeed, this has been
shown in national-level powerlifters
undergoing two 1-week training blocks
of BFR over 6.5 weeks using 30% 1RM
during front squats compared with the
non-BFR group performing the same
exercise at 60–85% 1RM (8). Vastus
lateralis hypertrophy increased +7.7%
in the BFR group versus 0% in the
non-BFR group, with gains primarily
attributed to increases in CSA of type
I muscle fibers. This study provides
intriguing evidence that the addition
of BFR can augment the hypertrophic
response in highly trained athletes.
Several other studies provide addi-
tional support for the combined use
of high-load training and low-load
BFR training in athletes and well-
trained individuals, although the re-
sults on hypertrophy are not always
consistent (Table 1). Most studies
incorporating BFR into their training
used the strategy as a low-load supple-
ment to heavy-load training
(59,60,77,102), while others used BFR
with heavy loads (70% of 1RM) (19) or
performed the same exercises but
substituted BFR at lighter intensities
(8). The majority of the research using
concurrent training show significant
improvements in muscle strength rela-
tive to the non-BFR training groups
(19,60,102) with some showing
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Table 1
Relevant studies on athletes and resistance-trained individuals using concurrent BFR and high load
References Participants Variables of interest Exercise protocol Frequency Duration Intensity

Yamanaka 32 Division IA Collegiate Strength: BP and SQ 1RM 30-20-20-20 repetitions of BP and SQ after regular HLT 33/wk 4 wk 20% 1RM
et al. Football Players (min 5- Hypertrophy: CM with or without BFR
(102) y RT experience); measures of upper
;19.2 y and lower chest and
arm girth, thigh girth
Luebbers 62 Division II Collegiate Strength: BP and SQ 1RM 4 Groups: 30-20-20-20 repetitions of BP and SQ after 23/wk per body region 7 wk 20% 1RM
et al. Football Players (avg. Hypertrophy: CM regular HLT with or without low-load BFR or low-load
(60) 7.1-y RT experience); measures of arm, leg, training; 1 group did not perform BP or SQ but
;20 y chest girth performed BFR
Scott et al. 21 Strength: 3RM BS 30-15-15-15 repetitions after regular HLT with or without 33/wk (except for week 5– 5 wk 20–30% 1RM
(77) Semiprofessional Male Hypertrophy: VL BFR 23/week)
Australian Football architecture
Players (avg. 1.63 BW
SQ); ;19.8 y
Cook et al. 20 Semiprofessional Male Strength: 1RM BP and BS 5 3 5 repetitions were performed with PU, BP and SQ 33/wk 3 wk 70% 1RM
(19) Rugby Players (min 2-y
RT experience); ;21 y
Bjornsen 19 National Level Strength: 1RM FS or MVIC Failure-15-12-Failure FS repetitions with or without BFR 53 FS/wk 3 2 wk 6.5 wk 24–31% 1RM
et al. (8) Powerlifters (16 men, 3 knee extension in addition to regular HLT; CON group performed 60–
women) (avg. ;5 y of Hypertrophy: Muscle fiber 85% 1RM FS
RT experience) analysis on VL, MT of
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

VL, VM, RF, VI

Lowery et 20 Resistance-Trained Hypertrophy: BB MT 3 3 30 repetitions with BFR 23/wk 8 wk 30% 1RM BFR; 60%
al. (59) Collegiate Males (min 1 measurements 3 3 15 repetitions with HLT 1RM HLT
y of RT experience); Groups performed same program for 8 wk but with and
;23 yo without BFR (4 wk each) and then switched
References Rest periods BFR application type BFR pressure applied BFR between rest periods? Outcomes? (only BFR reported)

Yamanaka 45 s KW N/A—2-inch overlap on KW Y Strength: +7.0% BP 1RM and

et al. +8.0% BS 1RM
(102) Hypertrophy: +3% in upper and
lower chest girth
(continued)
25
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
26 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2020

BFR Training and the Physique Athlete

Table 1
(continued )
Luebbers 45 s KW N/A—3-inch overlap on KW Y Strength: No differences in
et al. increases in BP 1RM between
(60) groups (+2.7–8.69 kg) but
differences in BS (+24.87 kg
versus 5.97–14.13 kg) 1RM
Hypertrophy: No differences
observed in increases in arm
or thigh measures between
groups; chest girth did not
increase in any group
Scott et al. 30 s KW N/A—“7/10 perceived tightness” Y Strength: No differences in
(77) increases in SQ 3RM between
groups (+12.3–12.5%)
Hypertrophy: No changes in VL
architecture for any group
Cook et al. 90 s PN 180 mm Hg during PU, BP and SQ N Strength: +1.4% and +2.0% in BP
(19) and BS 1RM in BFR group
compared with CON
Bjornsen 30 s KW ;120 mm Hg Y Strength: No group differences
et al. (8) in MVIC KE (+9.4 Nm in BFR
versus 21.8 Nm in CON pre
to post) or 1RM FS (+4.1 kg in
BFR versus +5.9 kg in CON
pre to post)
Hypertrophy: Type 1 fibers CSA
increased more in BFR (974
versus 13 mm2) with no
differences in Type 2 fiber
CSA between groups. CSA of
VL increased in BFR versus
CON (+1.64 versus 0.12 cm2)
and similar trends observed
in RF and VM but not VI.
Lowery et Not specified KW “6–7/10 perceived tightness” N/A No difference between HLT-BFR
al. (59) and BFR-HLT groups in BB
hypertrophy (pooled means
3.66 6 0.06 cm to 4.11 6
0.07 cm)

BFR 5 blood flow restriction; BP 5 bench press; BW 5 bodyweight; CM 5 circumferential; CSA 5 cross-sectional area; FS 5 front squat; HLT 5 high-load training; KW 5 knee wraps; LOP 5
limb occlusion pressure; MT 5 muscle thickness; MVIC 5 maximum voluntary isometric contraction; PN 5 pneumatic; PU 5 pull-ups; RM 5 repetition maximum; RF 5 rectus femoris muscle;
RT 5 resistance training; SQ 5 back squat; VI 5 vastus intermedius muscle; VL 5 vastus lateralis muscle; VM 5 vastus medialis muscle; YO 5 years old.
 concurrent improvements in muscle
hypertrophy (8,60,102), and yet, others
showing no effect of BFR training on
strength or hypertrophy (77). Method-
ological and/or participant character-
istics may explain the variance in
outcomes between studies. It seems
that when groups are volume-
equated, the results are mixed. Three
studies show either no difference in
hypertrophy between groups (59,60)
or no changes at all (77), while one
study shows superior hypertrophy of
the BFR group over the volume-
matched control (102).
Taking the aforementioned informa-
tion into consideration, the research
tends to show that the addition of
low-load BFR training to a high-
intensity training program increases
muscle hypertrophy in resistance-
trained participants over periods of
4–7 weeks compared with similar rou-
tines performed without BFR,
although more research is needed to
optimize RT exercise prescription to
maximize hypertrophic potential in
mixed training (i.e., heavy and light
load) approaches.
Some evidence suggests that BFR may
enhance the satellite cell (SC) response
to RT, thereby augmenting long-term
hypertrophic adaptations; an outcome
that would be of considerable benefit
to the physique athlete, particularly
those close to maximizing their genetic
capacity for muscle development. It
has been proposed that each myonu-
clei controls the production of proteins
for a finite volume of cytoplasm (the
“myonuclear domain theory”), and
beyond this theoretical “ceiling,” addi-
tional nuclei must be derived from SCs
to realize further increases in muscle
mass (72). The molecular underpin-
nings of how SCs are recruited to assist
in muscle building are beyond the
scope of this article, but in short—
a damaging bout of exercise activates
a quiescent SC from the basal lamina of
the muscle fiber to proliferate, differen-
tiate, and ultimately fuse to the muscle
fiber, donating nuclei and helping with
repair and growth processes (90,110).
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Given emerging research showing that
hypoxia potentiates the RT-induced
myogenic response (13), it can be spec-
ulated that BFR may be an effective
strategy to promote increases in SC
content. Indeed, a 3-week, high fre-
quency BFR training program was
shown to increase SC proliferation over
work-matched low-load free-flow exer-
cise (65). The findings led the authors to
speculate that perhaps interspersing
short blocks of low-load BFR training
into traditional RT programs might
enhance hypertrophic long-term adap-
tations. However, the fact that the con-
trol performed work-matched sets
raises that prospect that differences
between conditions may have been
due to differences in proximity to failure.
Other studies have reported no changes
in SC/myonuclei concentrations after 6
or 12 weeks of BFR training to failure
(at 30% 1RM) compared with nonfai-
lure high-intensity training (70%+
1RM) (26,80). It thus remains equivocal
whether BFR is a viable strategy to
increase SC content in physique ath-
letes; further research is needed to draw
evidence-based conclusions on
the topic.
Table 2 summarizes some of the impor-
tant considerations to make when
applying BFR before training.
Researchers use a number of different
BFR methodologies in the laboratory
setting that makes translating research
into practical recommendations chal-
lenging for the physique athlete. Prac-
tical recommendations for the
physique athlete must take into con-
sideration BFR cuff safety, cost, and
potential benefits with chronic use.
Research studies typically use cuffs
that are pneumatic or nonpneumatic.
Pneumatic cuffs fill up with air by
external means (either manually
through a pump or automatically
through a computer system or wireless
device) and apply the pressure to the
limb by increasing the amount of air
within the bladder of the cuff. Non-
pneumatic cuffs, such as elastic knee
wraps, apply pressure to the limb
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
through increased tension on the band
or strap provided by the user.
Although both types of applications
have shown to improve muscle mass
in the research (59,60,79,102), there ex-
ists some conflicting evidence on the
potential safety of nonpneumatic appli-
cations (i.e., knee wraps). Commonly
recommended application of nonpneu-
matic cuffs involve tightening knee
wraps to a perceived tightness of 6–7
(on a scale where “where “10” is max-
imal discomfort”) to achieve adequate
occlusion pressure (59,77). However,
some studies suggest that individuals
have difficulty achieving a standardized
restrictive stimulus on a session-to-
session basis, overestimating or under-
estimating applied pressures by as
much as 25% (7). This may contribute
to situations where individuals are
exercising under full limb occlusion,
increasing the risk of adverse events
even in healthy individuals. Further-
more, if the applied pressure is too
low, the local metabolic environment
is not significantly altered thus render-
ing the addition of the cuffs ineffective
at accelerating fatigue accumulation at
light loads (42,73).
Recently, some studies have investi-
gated alternative methods for stan-
dardizing cuff pressure with the use
of practical BFR. Abe et al. (2) deter-
mined that pulling elastic cuffs to 10–
20% of initial length achieved similar
reductions in brachial artery blood flow
as that of a pressurized nylon cuff in-
flated to 40 and 80% of resting arterial
occlusion pressure, respectively. Simi-
larly, Thiebaud et al. (89) reported that
elastic knee wraps, either stretched by
2 inches or to a length of ;85% of
thigh circumference, provided a valid
alternative to pneumatically inflated
cuffs. It should be noted that these
studies used specially designed elastic
cuffs that allow for precise determina-
tion of the magnitude of stretch; this is
a more difficult task with standard elas-
tic wraps, rendering their practical util-
ity somewhat limited.
Ideally, pneumatic devices are recom-
mended in the gym setting because
27
 BFR Training and the Physique Athlete

Table 2
Considerations for the practical application of BFR
Application variable Recommendation Research notes

Practical (knee wraps) using a perceived “7/10”
tightness versus pneumatic (tourniquet) using
limb occlusion pressure (LOP)a
Cuff width—narrow or wide (5–17 cm)
Pneumatic using LOP
Depends—both are
acceptable if using %LOP
Although KW have shown efficacy in a number of studies
(8,60,102), they do not allow the individual to obtain
a standardized pressure from session to session (7). Bell
et al. (2019) showed that when individuals were asked to
pump the cuff pressure in the arms and legs to a “7/10”
tightness once each day over 3 d, it resulted in
overestimation/underestimation of LOP in the arms by
25% and legs by 20%. This suggests that setting pressures
relative to LOP may provide a more standardized
stimulus.
All different cuff widths have been shown to have efficacy
(71), but narrow cuffs require higher pressures to obtain
LOP, potentially increasing risk to underlying
neurovasculature (55). However, use of wider cuffs may
attenuate hypertrophy underneath the restriction site
(26), although setting to individualized LOP may mitigate
that chance (51). Narrow cuffs have also been shown to
be more comfortable compared with wider cuffs when
set to the same relative LOP (83).

Cuff position Proximal limb Safety concerns for a nerve injury arise with external
compression directly over vulnerable regions at the
elbow (ulnar nerve) or knee (common fibular nerve)
tractions the nerve and increases risk of demyelination
with muscular contractions. The neurovasculature is more
protected closer to the trunk due to increased soft tissue;
so application is best suited proximally.
Maximum no. of cuffs at one time 2 (2 upper body or 2 lower Although there is no research comparing the acute or
body) chronic safety of BFR applied to 4 limbs simultaneously,
bilateral BFR has been shown to increase heart rate to
compensate for loss of stroke volume during exercise,
increasing rate pressure productb threefold compared
with free-flow exercise (74). In individuals exercising with
more than 2 cuffs on simultaneously, it may unnecessarily
increase risk of adverse cardiovascular events and is
therefore not recommended.
Body position and LOP Determine LOP in the LOP has been shown to vary based on the position of testing
position (standing/sitting/ (38,78). Underestimating or overestimating LOP may
supine) of the exercise decrease effectiveness of nonfailure BFR exercise or safety
(71).
Determining LOP (frequency) Once every 4–8 wk LOP has not shown to change significantly in healthy
individuals over the course of 8 wk (61).
a
LOP 5 limb occlusion pressure, is determined either with an automatic BFR device or manually with an external Doppler and a pneumatic cuff.
LOP is preferably determined in the position of the exercise, where the individual is relaxed, and an external Doppler is positioned at the level of
the radial or posterior tibial artery. The cuff is gradually inflated until there is no audible sound heard from the Doppler. The cuff is gradually
deflated, and the first sound heard is the individual’s LOP. Recent research also supports the use of a pulse oximeter in the upper but not lower
extremities (111).
b
RPP 5 rate pressure product is calculated by the equation, “RPP 5 heart rate 3 systolic blood pressure” and is a measure of the workload on the
heart.

BFR 5 blood flow restriction.

they are able to provide a more con- consumer. Newer technology has been cuffs in the gym setting. These cuffs
sistent restrictive stimulus for BFR recently released for consumer pur- can determine individualized suboc-
application, minimizing safety risk chase that removes some of the pre- clusive pressures without use of an
despite the higher cost to the vious barriers of using pneumatic external Doppler (the current gold

28 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2020

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 standard in clinical application). The
wireless nature of these devices also
makes them more “gym-friendly” than
clinical models that are tethered, ex-
panding their ability for widespread
gym use. That said, practical BFR
using elastic knee wraps remains a valid
option for promoting an anabolic stim-
ulus. Individuals choosing to use this
option should do so with caution and
reduce restrictive pressures if any
numbness, tingling, or excessive bruis-
ing underneath the restriction zone
occurs.
PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR INTEGRATING BLOOD FLOW
RESTRICTION RESISTANCE
TRAINING
Implementing BFR into the RT pro-
gram for physique athletes requires
some basic programming considera-
tions. Shown in Table 3 are some gen-
eral programming guidelines to
maximize hypertrophic potential with
BFR training based on the current
research.
Physique athletes can program BFR
RT to increase muscle hypertrophy in
a number of ways. The most practical
way to include BFR RT into a program
would be to add on 1–2 exercises per
target muscle group at the end of
a heavy-load training session to prefer-
entially stress muscle fibers that may
not be sufficiently stressed at higher
loading intensities (i.e., type I fibers)
(8,69). The combination of heavy-
load and low-load BFR in a single
training session provides both meta-
bolic and mechanical stress to the mus-
cle, which have been hypothesized to
positively contribute to maximal in-
creases in hypertrophy (69). Studies
have also shown that the additional
volume provided by nonfailure BFR
RT (i.e., 30-15-15-15) does not nega-
tively impact recovery from training
(57,87,88). However, incorporating
multiple sets of failure training may
prolong recovery and increase
delayed-onset muscle soreness, espe-
cially during unaccustomed bouts of
exercise (28,93). This may reduce
weekly training frequency and lead to
suboptimal hypertrophy over time.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Despite the potential for increased
recovery time performing failure rou-
tines, physique athletes may require
this approach occasionally to maxi-
mize long-term hypertrophy, espe-
cially if type I fiber hypertrophic
potential is limited by chronic training
with heavier loading protocols (8,9).
The best evidence-based approach
seemingly would be to program multi-
ple sets (2–4) of failure training period-
ically, most likely in exercise sessions
where there are scheduled rest days
afterward, so as to not provide a perfor-
mance decrement to subsequent lifting
sessions. Since unaccustomed failure
training tends to increase recovery
time, failure training should be per-
formed after an initial acclimation
period (2–4 weeks, 2–33/week) of
BFR RT has been completed. BFR
failure training also is more perceptu-
ally demanding than high-load training
despite significantly less overall vol-
ume, making it challenging to contin-
ually perform in practice (94). Finally,
single-joint exercises (i.e., leg exten-
sions and biceps curls) tend to be able
to drive more localized fatigue to the
muscles compared with compound ex-
ercises (i.e., squats and bent-over rows),
so these should be prioritized in train-
ing when heavy-load variations of the
same type of exercise are used concur-
rently in the lifting session (41).
Another unique application for BFR
RT could be during a planned deload
phase or when a competitor is deep in
contest preparation, and the likelihood
of musculoskeletal injury theoretically
increases. Two recent studies polling
elite physique athletes reported that
40+% of respondents train through
musculoskeletal pain (81,82). Short
blocks (1–2 weeks) of BFR RT could
reduce the stress on the joints of the
elbows and knees while providing sim-
ilar hypertrophic benefits as heavier
training (71). There also is evidence
to suggest a significant hypoalgesic
effect during and after BFR (45), which
may last up to 24 hours (39). This may
enable the physique athlete to continue
training despite injuries that would
otherwise hinder training intensity
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
(58). Taken together, low-load BFR
RT could help physique athletes main-
tain their physique during periods of
relative deloading while also decreas-
ing pain during and after exercise. Fig-
ure 1 displays the potential applications
for BFR during an RT program for
a physique athlete.
BFR RTexercise (20–50% 1RM) seems
to elicit similar benefits in muscle
hypertrophy when directly compared
with moderate-load (70% 1RM) and
heavy-load (80% 1RM) protocols
(21,46). However, heavy-load RT may
confer additional neuromuscular and
musculoskeletal benefits including
greater increases in dynamic strength
measures (i.e., 1RM), central activation
(a measure of neural drive to the mus-
cle), and greater muscle retention dur-
ing periods of detraining (12,109),
which may be of relevance to those
aspiring to maximize muscle develop-
ment over the long term. Thus, it is
recommended that BFR never com-
pletely replace heavy-load RT in
a long-term periodized program in
physique athletes.
There seems to be a difference in re-
sponses between men and women
with respect to submaximal BFR exer-
cise tolerance. Women have been
shown to have greater submaximal
endurance at lower loads (20–40%
1RM) than men (48,101). Accordingly,
women physique athletes may need
either additional loads and/or repeti-
tions to achieve a similar hypertrophic
stimulus as men using lower load, non-
failure BFR protocols.
From a loading standpoint, there likely
exists a floor beneath which optimal
hypertrophy can occur during BFR
training. Buckner et al. (14) random-
ized participants into 1 of 4 groups:
70% 1RM without BFR, 15% 1RM
without BFR, and 15% 1RM with 40
and 80% limb occlusion pressure
(LOP). Each participant performed
up to 4 sets of elbow flexion exercise
to volitional failure (or 90 repetitions)
twice a week for 8 weeks. Results
showed nonhomogenous increases in
muscle growth of the elbow flexors in
29
 BFR Training and the Physique Athlete

Table 3
Evidence-based practical recommendations for BFR resistance training
Programming variables to consider Recommendation Important notes

Frequency 2–33/wk for .3 wk, 1–23/d ,3 wk BFR training can be performed chronically 2–33/wk in combina-
tion with HLT or used to “shock” the musculoskeletal system for
a short period (,3 wk) for 1–23/d in the absence of HLT (like
during a deload week) (71). Of note, despite the low-load nature
of BFR, 1–23/d is very stressful and likely requires considerable
recovery (10 d) to observe benefits (9)
%LOPa Arms: 40–50% In nonfailure exercise, metabolic stress is shown to increase with
Legs: 60–80% higher pressures and in the legs, 40% LOP produces a similar
metabolic environment as free-flow exercise (42,73). However,
in the arms, 40% LOP produces similar outcomes as 90% LOP
(23).
No. of exercises per session Variable Most studies use either 1 exercise (i.e., leg extension); some use 2
exercises per muscle group performing a multijoint and single-
joint variation (i.e., leg press/leg extension) (21).
Repetition scheme 30-15-15-15 or failure training 3 Both routines show efficacy in numerous studies, but failure
multiple sets training tends to increase recovery time (97). Failure may be
needed to maximally fatigue target muscle groups, especially in
advanced trainees.
Maximum wear time 10–20 min Recommended to reduce risk of adverse events. Deflate after every
1–2 exercises and wait at least 1 min before reinflating (71).
Loads 20–50% 1RM Loads greater than 50% 1RM do not seem to augment the benefits
of BFR exercise (50). Loads less than 20% provide suboptimal
outcomes with respect to hypertrophy (14).
Tempo 1–2 s concentric/eccentric Lifting tempo should be between 1 and 2 s because most research
have used these numbers (71).
Interset rest 30–60 s Shorter rest periods augment metabolic stress to a greater degree
than longer rest periods (150 s) (54).

Continuous (CON) or intermittent
application (deflated during
rest)b
Continuous CON application shows superior metabolic stress (84) and muscle
fatigue (107) despite similar levels of perceptual effort during
exercise (31). Of note, when BFR is removed (or not applied)
during the rest periods, tissue oxygen levels tend to recover,
reducing metabolic stress (73).

Before or after HLT? After, unless no HLT performed After HLT, as maximizing hypertrophy likely needs a combination
(deloads) of high mechanical and metabolic stress, which could be
sacrificed long term if BFR is performed before HLT due to acute
fatigue response with BFR exercise (69).

Multijoint or single-joint exercises? Botha Both types have shown to increase hypertrophy, but single-joint
exercises likely superior to drive growth to muscles distal to the
cuff due to higher local fatigue tolerance (41).

Exercise order in BFR—multijoint or Either, although single-joint may stress Both have shown to be effective, but likely excessive fatigue
single-joint? muscles distal to the cuff to accumulation during single-joint movements may impede
a greater degree completion of multijoint exercise performance.
a
LOP 5 limb occlusion pressure is the minimum pressure needed to completely restrict both arterial and venous flow to the limb. Exercise is
performed at a percentage of this value.
b
CON 5 continuous application describes when the BFR cuff is left inflated throughout the duration of the exercise versus deflated during the
rest periods.

BFR 5 blood flow restriction; HLT 5 high-load training (70+% 1RM); RM 5 repetition maximum.

30 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2020

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Figure 1. A hypothetical mixed-method approach that integrates BFR training into a traditional RT program for the physique
athlete. BFR 5 blood flow restriction; HLT 5 heavy-load training; RM 5 repetition maximum; RT 5 resistance training.

the 15% conditions irrespective of
BFR, with lesser absolute increases in
hypertrophy compared with the 70%
1RM condition. Therefore, it seems
that metabolite-induced fatigue and
cell swelling act to augment the hyper-
trophic response to BFR RT in
response to external loads above 15%
1RM, but not lower. When integrating
BFR RT into exercise prescriptions,
loads corresponding to at least 20%
1RM should be used to ensure maxi-
mal benefit in work-matched or failure
exercise protocols.
An observed benefit to BFR RT in
untrained or injured populations when
performing multijoint exercises such as
the back squat or bench press involves
additional hypertrophy of the proxi-
mal muscle groups (i.e., gluteals and
pectorals) (1,10,105). However, the
gains in hypertrophy are variable and
tend to be greater with individuals who
are more deconditioned (10,105). In
the physique athlete who can tolerate
additional loading (70+% 1RM), BFR
may not provide enough of a hypertro-
phic stimulus to the muscles proximal
to the cuff to warrant its inclusion in
a training program. This is attributed to
decreased muscle activation secondary
to reduced training loads (especially
during nonfailure, multijoint exercise)
(1). It is recommended that muscles
proximal to the cuff be directly trained
with heavier loads without BFR to
maximize hypertrophy of these
muscles.
Figure 1 highlights the gradual intro-
duction of BFR RT into a heavy-load
RT program over 12 weeks. Although
applied pressure is not specified,
research has shown that a wide variety
of pressures can be used to improve
muscle hypertrophy at various loads
(52). However, it seems that when
using lighter loads closer to 20%
1RM, higher relative pressures (50%
LOP in the arms and 80% LOP in
the legs) may be needed to maximize
muscle gains (52). In nonfailure

Table 4
Possible ways to progress BFR resistance training
Difficulty Range of motion Miscellaneous variables BFR variables

Easier Partial range of motion Avoid lengthening two-joint muscles (i.e., calf raises on the Nonfailure (30-15-15-15)
floor versus off step)
Single-joint exercises Lower pressure (40% arms,
60–70% legs)
Multijoint exercises
Bilateral (i.e., squats) Lower %1RM (20–35% 1RM)
1–2 exercises/session
Harder Full range of motion Intensification techniques (drop sets, compound sets, etc.) Failure (2–4 sets)

Single-joint exercises Full 2-joint muscle excursions (straight leg calf raise off step Higher pressure (50% arms/
Long-lever exercises (i.e., Straight leg into full dorsiflexion) 80% legs)
raise flexion)
Higher % 1RM (35–50% 1RM)
Multijoint exercises
Single-leg biased (i.e., lunge) 3–5 exercises/session
Single-leg dynamic (i.e., walking
lunge)
BFR 5 blood flow restriction; RM 5 repetition maximum.

31
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 BFR Training and the Physique Athlete
routines (i.e., 30-15-15-15), metabolic
responses (i.e., rise in lactate and mus-
cle deoxygenation) seem to be aug-
mented in a pressure-dependent
manner above 40% LOP (80% . 60%
. 40% 5 low load-free flow) (42).
Conversely, higher relative pressures
(i.e., 50% LOP in the arms and 80%
LOP in the legs) may not be required
at loads approaching 50% 1RM
because the intramuscular pressure
may be high enough from the contrac-
tion itself to produce occlusion during
the exercise bout (37,50,75). There also
seems to be no additional acute or
chronic benefit for adding BFR to
heavy loading as the muscle activation
is already high (50,64). Finally,
although BFR has been shown to be
relatively safe and promote benefits in
both muscle and connective tissue (17)
despite the low loads, not much is
known about effects from long-term
continuous (16+ weeks) application.
Therefore, a periodic removal of BFR
from the RT program is advised
to minimize the risk of potential
chronic adverse events currently
unknown.
Table 4 provides BFR evidence-based
progression guidelines for the use of
BFR training with athletes and body-
builders. The same principles of inten-
sifying strength training may apply to
BFR at lower loads (i.e., drop sets,
compound sets, etc.), but potential ben-
efits over traditional approaches with-
out BFR warrant further research.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
BFR RT seems to be a novel way to
enhance muscle hypertrophy in phy-
sique athletes, especially when used
in conjunction with heavy-load RT.
Although the benefits of BFR AT are
less conclusive, the strategy does mod-
estly increase EE, cell swelling, and (in
some modes of exercise) metabolic
stress compared with work-matched
free-flow exercise, all of which can be
beneficial to the physique athlete by
either aiding in maintaining/produc-
ing a caloric deficit or by creating an
32 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2020
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
anabolic environment to aid in muscle
growth. Both of these applications
may be used in tandem to maximize
the hypertrophic potential of a com-
bined exercise session, but caution is
warranted with long-term continu-
ous use.
Despite the fact that BFR generally has
been shown to be safe to use in healthy
resistance-trained adults, not much is
known about the long-term effects
(16+ weeks) on vascular function, espe-
cially during RT where intramuscular
pressures from muscle contractions
may excessively stress the structure of
the arteriovenous system (i.e., stiffness/
compliance etc) (24). Therefore, it is
strongly advised to schedule a pro-
grammed 4-week period where BFR
is completely removed from training
to account for any potential as-yet-
undetermined adverse events.
With respect to the physique athlete,
there are numerous avenues for future
research that could help elucidate the
effectiveness of BFR within this popu-
lation. There are currently no studies
comparing heavy-load RT to heavy-
load RT plus low-load BFR RT in
highly trained physique athletes nor
are there any studies showing the
effectiveness of low-load BFR RT in
maintaining lean body mass during
contest preparation.
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
Nicholas Rolnick has received compensation to
provide educational lectures about blood flow
restriction training on behalf of Mad-Up,
a company that manufactures blood flow
resistance training systems. Otherwise, the
authors declare no other conflicts of interest.
Nick Rolnick is
the founder of the
BRF PROS, and
operates a physi-
cal therapy prac-
tice in New York.
Brad
Schoenfeld is
an associate pro-
fessor in the
Department of
Health Sciences
at CUNY Leh-
man College.
REFERENCES
1. Abe T, Loenneke JP, Fahs CA, et al.
Exercise intensity and muscle hypertrophy
in blood flow-restricted limbs and non-
restricted muscles: A brief review. Clin
Physiol Funct Imaging 32: 247–252,
2012.
2. Abe T, Mouser JG, Dankel SJ, et al. A
method to standardize the blood flow
restriction pressure by an elastic cuff.
Scand J Med Sci Sports 29: 329–335,
2019.
3. Alvarez IF, Damas F, Biazon TMP, et al.
Muscle damage responses to resistance
exercise performed with high-load versus
low-load associated with partial blood
flow restriction in young women. Eur J
Sport Sci 20:125–134, 2020.
4. Alway SE, Grumbt WH, Stray-Gundersen
J, Gonyea WJ. Effects of resistance
training on elbow flexors of highly
competitive bodybuilders. J Appl Physiol
(1985) 72: 1512–1521, 1992.
5. Amann M, Sidhu SK, Weavil JC, Mangum
TS, Venturelli M. Autonomic responses to
exercise: Group III/IV muscle afferents and
fatigue. Auton Neurosci 188: 19–23, 2015.
6. Behringer M, Heinke L, Leyendecker J,
Mester J. Effects of blood flow restriction
during moderate-intensity eccentric knee
extensions. J Physiol Sci 68: 589–599,
2018.
7. Bell ZW, Dankel SJ, Spitz RW, et al. The
perceived tightness scale does not provide
reliable estimates of blood flow restriction
pressure. J Sport Rehabil 1–3, 2019.
8. Bjornsen T, Wernbom M, Kirketeig A, et al.
Type 1 muscle fiber hypertrophy after
blood flow-restricted training in
powerlifters. Med Sci Sports Exerc 51:
288–298, 2019.
9. Bjornsen T, Wernbom M, Lovstad A, et al.
Delayed myonuclear addition, myofiber
hypertrophy, and increases in strength
 with high-frequency low-load blood flow
restricted training to volitional failure.
J Appl Physiol (1985) 126: 578–592,
2019.
10. Bowman EN, Elshaar R, Milligan H, et al.
Proximal, distal, and contralateral effects
of blood flow restriction training on the
lower extremities: A randomized
controlled trial. Sports Health 11: 149–
156, 2019.
11. Brandner CR, Warmington SA, Kidgell
DJ. Corticomotor excitability is increased
following an acute bout of blood flow
restriction resistance exercise. Front Hum
Neurosci 9: 652, 2015.
12. Brandner CR, Clarkson MJ, Kidgell DJ,
Warmington SA. Muscular adaptations to
whole body blood flow restriction training
and detraining. Front Physiol 10: 1099,
2019.
13. Britto FA, Gnimassou O, De Groote E,
et al. Acute environmental hypoxia
potentiates satellite cell-dependent
myogenesis in response to resistance
exercise through the inflammation
pathway in human. FASEB J 34: 1885–
1900, 2020.
14. Buckner SL, Jessee MB, Dankel SJ, et al.
Blood flow restriction does not augment
low force contractions taken to or near
task failure (dagger). Eur J Sport Sci 1–
10, 2019.
15. Buckner SL, Jessee MB, Dankel SJ, et al.
Acute skeletal muscle responses to very
low-load resistance exercise with and
without the application of blood flow
restriction in the upper body. Clin Physiol
Funct Imaging 39: 201–208, 2019.
16. Burd NA, Tang JE, Moore DR, Phillips SM.
Exercise training and protein metabolism:
Influences of contraction, protein intake,
and sex-based differences. J Appl Physiol
106: 1692–1701, 2009.
17. Centner C, Lauber B, Seynnes OR, et al.
Low-load blood flow restriction training
induces similar morphological and
mechanical Achilles tendon adaptations
compared with high-load resistance
training. J Appl Physiol (1985) 127:
1660–1667, 2019.
18. Centner C, Wiegel P, Gollhofer A, Konig
D. Effects of blood flow restriction training
on muscular strength and hypertrophy in
older individuals: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Sports Med 49: 95–108,
2019.
19. Cook CJ, Kilduff LP, Beaven CM.
Improving strength and power in trained
athletes with 3 weeks of occlusion
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
training. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 9:
166–172, 2014.
20. Cook SB, LaRoche DP, Villa MR, Barile H,
Manini TM. Blood flow restricted
resistance training in older adults at risk of
mobility limitations. Exp Gerontol 99:
138–145, 2017.
21. Cook SB, Scott BR, Hayes KL, Murphy
BG. Neuromuscular adaptations to low-
load blood flow restricted resistance
training. J Sports Sci Med 17: 66–73,
2018.
22. Copithorne DB, Rice CL. The effect of
blood flow occlusion during acute low-
intensity isometric elbow flexion exercise.
Eur J Appl Physiol 119: 587–595, 2019.
23. Counts BR, Dankel SJ, Barnett BE, et al.
Influence of relative blood flow restriction
pressure on muscle activation and muscle
adaptation. Muscle Nerve 53: 438–445,
2016.
24. da Cunha Nascimento D, Schoenfeld BJ,
Prestes J. Potential implications of blood
flow restriction exercise on vascular
health: A brief review. Sports Med 50:
73–81, 2020.
25. de Morree HM, Klein C, Marcora SM.
Perception of effort reflects central motor
command during movement execution.
Psychophysiology 49: 1242–1253,
2012.
26. Ellefsen S, Hammarstrom D, Strand TA,
et al. Blood flow-restricted strength
training displays high functional and
biological efficacy in women: A within-
subject comparison with high-load
strength training. Am J Physiol Regul
Integr Comp Physiol 309: R767–R779,
2015.
27. Fahs CA, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS,
et al. Muscular adaptations to fatiguing
exercise with and without blood flow
restriction. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging
35: 167–176, 2015.
28. Farup J, de Paoli F, Bjerg K, et al. Blood
flow restricted and traditional resistance
training performed to fatigue produce
equal muscle hypertrophy. Scand J Med
Sci Sports 25: 754–763, 2015.
29. Ferraz RB, Gualano B, Rodrigues R, et al.
Benefits of resistance training with blood
flow restriction in knee osteoarthritis. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 50: 897–905, 2018.
30. Freitas EDS, Poole C, Miller RM, et al.
Time course change in muscle swelling:
High-intensity vs. blood flow restriction
exercise. Int J Sports Med 38: 1009–
1016, 2017.
31. Freitas EDS, Miller RM, Heishman AD,
et al. Perceptual responses to
33
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
continuous versus intermittent blood
flow restriction exercise: A randomized
controlled trial. Physiol Behav 212:
112717, 2019.
32. Fry CS, Glynn EL, Drummond MJ, et al.
Blood flow restriction exercise stimulates
mTORC1 signaling and muscle protein
synthesis in older men. J Appl Physiol
108: 1199–1209, 2010.
33. Fujita S, Abe T, Drummond MJ, et al.
Blood flow restriction during low-intensity
resistance exercise increases S6K1
phosphorylation and muscle protein
synthesis. J Appl Physiol 103: 903–910,
2007.
34. Gandevia SC. Spinal and supraspinal
factors in human muscle fatigue. Physiol
Rev 81: 1725–1789, 2001.
35. Gundermann D. Mechanisms of Blood
Flow Restriction Exercise in Skeletal
Muscle Adaptations [doctoral thesis].
Galvaston, TX: The University of Texas
Medical Branch at Galveston, 2016.
Available at: https://utmb-ir.tdl.org/
handle/2152.3/849
36. Gundermann DM, Walker DK, Reidy PT,
et al. Activation of mTORC1 signaling and
protein synthesis in human muscle
following blood flow restriction exercise is
inhibited by rapamycin. Am J Physiol
Endocrinol Metab 306: E1198–E1204,
2014.
37. Hisaeda HO, Shinohara M, Kouzaki M,
Fukunaga T. Effect of local blood
circulation and absolute torque on muscle
endurance at two different knee-joint
angles in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol 86:
17–23, 2001.
38. Hughes L, Jeffries O, Waldron M, et al.
Influence and reliability of lower-limb
arterial occlusion pressure at different
body positions. PeerJ 6: e4697, 2018.
39. Hughes L, Patterson SD, Haddad F, et al.
Examination of the comfort and pain
experienced with blood flow restriction
training during post-surgery rehabilitation
of anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction patients: A UK national
health service trial. Phys Ther Sport 39:
90–98, 2019.
40. Hughes L, Rosenblatt B, Haddad F,
et al. Comparing the effectiveness of
blood flow restriction and traditional
heavy load resistance training in the
post-surgery rehabilitation of anterior
cruciate ligament reconstruction
patients: A UK national health service
randomised controlled trial. Sports Med
49: 1787–1805, 2019.
 BFR Training and the Physique Athlete
41. Hureau TJ, Romer LM, Amann M. The
“sensory tolerance limit”: A hypothetical
construct determining exercise performance?
Eur J Sport Sci 18: 13–24, 2018.
42. Ilett MJ, Rantalainen T, Keske MA, May
AK, Warmington SA. The effects of
restriction pressures on the acute
responses to blood flow restriction
exercise. Front Physiol 10: 1018, 2019.
43. Jakobsgaard JE, Christiansen M, Sieljacks
P, et al. Impact of blood flow-restricted
bodyweight exercise on skeletal muscle
adaptations. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging
2018. doi: 10.1111/cpf.12509. [Epub
ahead of print].
44. Kim D, Loenneke JP, Ye X, et al. Low-load
resistance training with low relative
pressure produces muscular changes
similar to high-load resistance training.
Muscle Nerve 56: E126–E133, 2017.
45. Korakakis V, Whiteley R, Giakas G. Low
load resistance training with blood flow
restriction decreases anterior knee pain
more than resistance training alone. A
pilot randomised controlled trial. Phys
Ther Sport 34: 121–128, 2018.
46. Kubo K, Komuro T, Ishiguro N, et al.
Effects of low-load resistance training
with vascular occlusion on the mechanical
properties of muscle and tendon. J Appl
Biomech 22: 112–119, 2006.
47. Kubota A, Sakuraba K, Sawaki K, Sumide
T, Tamura Y. Prevention of disuse
muscular weakness by restriction of blood
flow. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40: 529–534,
2008.
48. Labarbera KE, Murphy BG, Laroche DP,
Cook SB. Sex differences in blood flow
restricted isotonic knee extensions to
fatigue. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 53:
444–452, 2013.
49. Latham T, Mackay L, Sproul D, et al.
Lactate, a product of glycolytic
metabolism, inhibits histone deacetylase
activity and promotes changes in gene
expression. Nucleic Acids Res 40: 4794–
4803, 2012.
50. Laurentino G, Ugrinowitsch C, Aihara AY,
et al. Effects of strength training and
vascular occlusion. Int J Sports Med 29:
664–667, 2008.
51. Laurentino GC, Loenneke JP, Teixeira EL,
et al. The effect of cuff width on muscle
adaptations after blood flow restriction
training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 48: 920–
925, 2016.
52. Lixandrao ME, Ugrinowitsch C, Laurentino
G, et al. Effects of exercise intensity and
occlusion pressure after 12 weeks of
resistance training with blood-flow
34 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2020
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
restriction. Eur J Appl Physiol 115:
2471–2480, 2015.
53. Lixandrao ME, Ugrinowitsch C, Berton R,
et al. Magnitude of muscle strength and
mass adaptations between high-load
resistance training versus low-load
resistance training associated with blood-
flow restriction: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Sports Med 48: 361–378,
2018.
54. Loenneke JP, Kearney ML, Thrower AD,
Collins S, Pujol TJ. The acute response of
practical occlusion in the knee extensors.
J Strength Cond Res 24: 2831–2834,
2010.
55. Loenneke JP, Fahs CA, Rossow LM, et al.
Effects of cuff width on arterial occlusion:
Implications for blood flow restricted
exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 112: 2903–
2912, 2011.
56. Loenneke JP, Fahs CA, Rossow LM, Abe
T, Bemben MG. The anabolic benefits of
venous blood flow restriction training may
be induced by muscle cell swelling. Med
Hypotheses 78: 151–154, 2012.
57. Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, Fahs CA,
et al. Blood flow restriction does not result
in prolonged decrements in torque. Eur J
Appl Physiol 113: 923–931, 2013.
58. Loenneke JP, Young KC, Wilson JM,
Andersen JC. Rehabilitation of an
osteochondral fracture using blood flow
restricted exercise: A case review.
J Bodyw Mov Ther 17: 42–45, 2013.
59. Lowery RP, Joy JM, Loenneke JP, et al.
Practical blood flow restriction training
increases muscle hypertrophy during
a periodized resistance training
programme. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging
34: 317–321, 2014.
60. Luebbers PE, Fry AC, Kriley LM, Butler
MS. The effects of a 7-week practical
blood flow restriction program on well-
trained collegiate athletes. J Strength
Cond Res 28: 2270–2280, 2014.
61. Mattocks KT, Mouser JG, Jessee MB,
et al. Perceptual changes to progressive
resistance training with and without blood
flow restriction. J Sports Sci 37: 1857–
1864, 2019.
62. Mouser JG, Laurentino GC, Dankel SJ,
et al. Blood flow in humans following low-
load exercise with and without blood flow
restriction. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 42:
1165–1171, 2017.
63. Natsume T, Yoshihara T, Naito H.
Electromyostimulation with blood flow
restriction enhances activation of mTOR
and MAPK signaling pathways in rat
gastrocnemius muscles. Appl Physiol
Nutr Metab 44: 637–644, 2019.
64. Neto GR, Santos HH, Sousa JB, et al.
Effects of high-intensity blood flow
restriction exercise on muscle fatigue.
J Hum Kinet 41: 163–172, 2014.
65. Nielsen JL, Aagaard P, Bech RD, et al.
Proliferation of myogenic stem cells in
human skeletal muscle in response to low-
load resistance training with blood flow
restriction. J Physiol 590: 4351–4361,
2012.
66. Nyakayiru J, Fuchs CJ, Trommelen J, et al.
Blood flow restriction only increases
myofibrillar protein synthesis with
exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 51:
1137–1145, 2019.
67. Ohno Y, Ando K, Ito T, et al. Lactate
stimulates a potential for hypertrophy and
regeneration of mouse skeletal muscle.
Nutrients 11: pii: E869, 2019. doi:
10.3390/nu11040869.
68. Oishi Y, Tsukamoto H, Yokokawa T, et al.
Mixed lactate and caffeine compound
increases satellite cell activity and
anabolic signals for muscle hypertrophy.
J Appl Physiol (1985) 118: 742–749,
2015.
69. Ozaki H, Loenneke JP, Buckner SL, Abe
T. Muscle growth across a variety of
exercise modalities and intensities:
Contributions of mechanical and
metabolic stimuli. Med Hypotheses 88:
22–26, 2016.
70. Pageaux B. Perception of effort in
exercise science: Definition,
measurement and perspectives. Eur J
Sport Sci 16: 885–894, 2016.
71. Patterson SD, Hughes L, Warmington S,
et al. Blood flow restriction exercise:
Considerations of methodology,
application, and safety. Front Physiol 10:
533, 2019.
72. Petrella JK, Kim JS, Cross JM, Kosek DJ,
Bamman MM. Efficacy of myonuclear
addition may explain differential myofiber
growth among resistance-trained young
and older men and women. Am J Physiol
Endocrinol Metab 291: E937–E946,
2006.
73. Reis JF, Fatela P, Mendonca GV, et al.
Tissue oxygenation in response to
different relative levels of blood-flow
restricted exercise. Front Physiol 10: 407,
2019.
74. Renzi CP, Tanaka H, Sugawara J. Effects
of leg blood flow restriction during
walking on cardiovascular function. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 42: 726–732, 2010.
 75. Sadamoto T, Bonde-Petersen F, Suzuki Y.
Skeletal muscle tension, flow, pressure,
and EMG during sustained isometric
contractions in humans. Eur J Appl
Physiol Occup Physiol 51: 395–408,
1983.
76. Sato Y. The history and future of KAATSU
training. Int J Kaatsu Train Res 1: 1–5,
2006.
77. Scott BR, Peiffer JJ, Goods PSR. The
effects of supplementary low-load blood
flow restriction training on morphological
and performance-based adaptations in
team sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res
31: 2147–2154, 2017.
78. Sieljacks P, Knudsen L, Wernbom M,
Vissing K. Body position influences
arterial occlusion pressure: Implications
for the standardization of pressure
during blood flow restricted exercise.
Eur J Appl Physiol 118: 303–312,
2018.
79. Sieljacks P, Degn R, Hollaender K,
Wernbom M, Vissing K. Non-failure blood
flow restricted exercise induces similar
muscle adaptations and less discomfort
than failure protocols. Scand J Med Sci
Sports 29: 336–347, 2019.
80. Sieljacks P, Wang J, Groennebaek T, et al.
Six weeks of low-load blood flow
restricted and high-load resistance
exercise training produce similar
increases in cumulative myofibrillar
protein synthesis and ribosomal
biogenesis in healthy males. Front Physiol
10: 649, 2019.
81. Siewe J, Rudat J, Rollinghoff M, et al.
Injuries and overuse syndromes in
powerlifting. Int J Sports Med 32: 703–
711, 2011.
82. Siewe J, Marx G, Knoll P, et al. Injuries and
overuse syndromes in competitive and
elite bodybuilding. Int J Sports Med 35:
943–948, 2014.
83. Spitz RW, Chatakondi RN, Bell ZW, et al.
The impact of cuff width and biological
sex on cuff preference and the perceived
discomfort to blood-flow-restricted arm
exercise. Physiol Meas 40: 055001,
2019.
84. Suga T, Okita K, Takada S, et al. Effect of
multiple set on intramuscular metabolic
stress during low-intensity resistance
exercise with blood flow restriction. Eur J
Appl Physiol 112: 3915–3920, 2012.
85. Takarada Y, Nakamura Y, Aruga S, et al.
Rapid increase in plasma growth hormone
after low-intensity resistance exercise with
vascular occlusion. J Appl Physiol 88:
61–65, 2000.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
86. Takarada Y, Takazawa H, Ishii N.
Applications of vascular occlusion
diminish disuse atrophy of knee extensor
muscles. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32:
2035–2039, 2000.
87. Thiebaud RS, Yasuda T, Loenneke JP,
Abe T. Effects of low-intensity concentric
and eccentric exercise combined with
blood flow restriction on indices of
exercise-induced muscle damage. Interv
Med Appl Sci 5: 53–59, 2013.
88. Thiebaud RS, Loenneke JP, Fahs CA,
et al. Muscle damage after low-intensity
eccentric contractions with blood flow
restriction. Acta Physiol Hung 101: 150–
157, 2014.
89. Thiebaud RS, Abe T, Loenneke JP, et al.
Acute muscular responses to practical
low-load blood flow restriction exercise
versus traditional low-load blood flow
restriction and high-/low-load exercise.
J Sport Rehabil 1–9, 2019.
90. Toigo M, Boutellier U. New fundamental
resistance exercise determinants of
molecular and cellular muscle
adaptations. Eur J Appl Physiol 97: 643–
663, 2006.
91. Tranum-Jensen J, Janse MJ, Fiolet WT,
et al. Tissue osmolality, cell swelling, and
reperfusion in acute regional myocardial
ischemia in the isolated porcine heart.
Circ Res 49: 364–381, 1981.
92. Tsukamoto S, Shibasaki A, Naka A, Saito
H, Iida K. Lactate promotes myoblast
differentiation and myotube hypertrophy
via a pathway involving MyoD in vitro and
enhances muscle regeneration in vivo. Int
J Mol Sci 19: pii: E3649, 2018. doi:
10.3390/ijms19113649.
93. Umbel JD, Hoffman RL, Dearth DJ, et al.
Delayed-onset muscle soreness induced
by low-load blood flow-restricted
exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 107: 687–
695, 2009.
94. Vieira A, Gadelha AB, Ferreira-Junior JB,
et al. Session rating of perceived exertion
following resistance exercise with blood
flow restriction. Clin Physiol Funct
Imaging 35: 323–327, 2015.
95. Wernbom M, Augustsson J, Thomee R.
Effects of vascular occlusion on muscular
endurance in dynamic knee extension
exercise at different submaximal loads.
J Strength Cond Res 20: 372–377,
2006.
96. Wernbom M, Jarrebring R, Andreasson
MA, Augustsson J. Acute effects of blood
flow restriction on muscle activity and
endurance during fatiguing dynamic knee
35
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
extensions at low load. J Strength Cond
Res 23: 2389–2395, 2009.
97. Wernbom M, Paulsen G, Nilsen TS,
Hisdal J, Raastad T. Contractile function
and sarcolemmal permeability after acute
low-load resistance exercise with blood
flow restriction. Eur J Appl Physiol 112:
2051–2063, 2012.
98. Wernbom M, Aagaard P. Muscle fibre
activation and fatigue with low-load blood
flow restricted resistance exercise-An
integrative physiology review. Acta
Physiol (Oxf) 228: e13302, 2020.
99. Willis SJ, Alvarez L, Borrani F, Millet GP.
Oxygenation time course and
neuromuscular fatigue during repeated
cycling sprints with bilateral blood flow
restriction. Physiol Rep 6: e13872, 2018.
100. Willkomm L, Schubert S, Jung R, et al.
Lactate regulates myogenesis in C2C12
myoblasts in vitro. Stem Cell Res 12:
742–753, 2014.
101. Wong V, Abe T, Chatakondi RN, et al. The
influence of biological sex and cuff width
on muscle swelling, echo intensity, and
the fatigue response to blood flow
restricted exercise. J Sports Sci 37:
1865–1873, 2019.
102. Yamanaka T, Farley RS, Caputo JL.
Occlusion training increases muscular
strength in division IA football players.
J Strength Cond Res 26: 2523–2529,
2012.
103. Yanagisawa O, Fukutani A. Effects of low-
load resistance exercise with blood flow
restriction on intramuscular
hemodynamics, oxygenation level and
water content. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
58: 793–801, 2018.
104. Yasuda T, Abe T, Brechue WF, et al.
Venous blood gas and metabolite
response to low-intensity muscle
contractions with external limb
compression. Metabolism 59: 1510–
1519, 2010.
105. Yasuda T, Ogasawara R, Sakamaki M,
Bemben MG, Abe T. Relationship
between limb and trunk muscle
hypertrophy following high-intensity
resistance training and blood flow-
restricted low-intensity resistance
training. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 31:
347–351, 2011.
106. Yasuda T, Ogasawara R, Sakamaki M,
et al. Combined effects of low-intensity
blood flow restriction training and high-
intensity resistance training on muscle
strength and size. Eur J Appl Physiol 111:
2525–2533, 2011.
 BFR Training and the Physique Athlete

107. Yasuda T, Loenneke JP, Ogasawara R,
Abe T. Influence of continuous or
intermittent blood flow restriction on
109. Yasuda T, Loenneke JP, Ogasawara R,
muscle activation during low-intensity
multiple sets of resistance exercise. Acta
Physiol Hung 100: 419–426, 2013.
108. Yasuda T, Fukumura K, Iida H, Nakajima T.
Effect of low-load resistance exercise with
and without blood flow restriction to
volitional fatigue on muscle swelling. Eur J
Appl Physiol 115: 919–926, 2015.
Abe T. Effects of short-term detraining
following blood flow restricted low-
intensity training on muscle size and
strength. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 35:
71–75, 2015.
110. Zammit PS. All muscle satellite cells are
equal, but are some more equal than
others? J Cell Sci 121: 2975–2982,
2008.
111. Zeng Z, Centner C, Gollhofer A, Konig D.
Blood-flow-restriction training: Validity of
pulse oximetry to assess arterial occlusion
pressure. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 1–
7, 2019.

36 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2020

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.