Share this Abstract

Rate this Abstract

Login to allow rating

Views

Login to allow views

Options


Abstract Details

Abstract Title

Does Resistance Exercise with versus without Blood Flow Restriction Alter Appetite in Trained Men?

Abstract Theme

Sport nutrition

Type Presentation

Poster

Abstract Authors

Presenter Jarbas Rállison Domingos Gomes - Integrated Colleges of Patos (Department of Physical Education) - BR
Pablo B. Costa - California State University (Department of Kinesiology) - US
Wagner Luiz do Prado - California State University (Department of Kinesiology) - BR
Leonardo da Silva Leandro - Integrated Colleges of Patos (Department of Physical Education) - BR
Eduardo Domingos da Silva Freitas - Federal University of Paraíba (Department of Physical Education) - BR
Leonardo dos Santos Oliveira - State University of Londrina (Center of Physical Education and Sport) - BR
Rodrigo Ramalho Aniceto - Federal University of Paraíba (Department of Physical Education) - BR

Presentation Details

Poster Exhibition Site (Local): Purple - 9        Date: 1 September        Time: 8am to 7pm        Presenter: Rodrigo Aniceto

Abstract Resume

Background: A single session of resistance exercise is capable of changing appetite, demonstrating that high load training session may reduce food intake post-exercise. However, it is
not clear whether resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (BFR) at low-loads may alter appetite in a similar manner. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the acute effect of resistance
exercise with versus without BFR on appetite.
Methods: Twelve apparently healthy trained men (mean ± SD – age = 23.33 ± 3.77 years, body mass index = 24.49 ± 2.80 kg/m2, body fat percentage = 11.44 ± 4.69 %, and one repetition
maximum [1RM] load for the knee extension machine = 112.08 ± 20.72 kg and biceps curl = 41.91 ± 6.69 kg) participated in a crossover randomized counterbalanced design study. Subjects participated in
three sessions separated by 3-5 days. In the first session, anthropometric measurements were taken and the 1RM test and familiarization session were performed. In the second and third sessions, knee
extension and biceps curl were executed for BFR and traditional resistance exercise (TRE). Both methods were standardized by total work with three sets of eight repetitions at 70% of 1RM for TRE and
three sets of 16 reps at 35% of 1RM for BFR. A cadence of one second for eccentric and concentric contractions was followed and one-minute rest interval between sets and five minutes between exercises
were provided. BFR was applied at the most proximal portion of the limbs using a 76 mm wide elastic knee wraps placed on the arms (biceps curl) and thighs (knee extension). Appetite was assessed
through visual analogue scale with 100mm in length with words anchored at each end, expressing the most positive and the most negative rating. This scale was used to assess hunger (HG, cm) and
prospective food consumption (PFC, cm) before, immediately, 30 min, and 60 min post-exercise. To compare appetite measurements, a two-way ANOVA with Newman-Keuls post hoc was used.
Results: There were no significant differences between BFR and TRE for appetite at rest and post-exercise (P > 0.05). When compared to rest (intragroup), HG significantly increased 30
min and 60 min post BFR (P < 0.05). There was also an elevation of PFC immediately post-session BFR, and 30 min and 60 min post-exercise for both methods of training (p < 0.05).
Conclusions: The resistance exercise with BFR tends to increase the post-exercise appetite, both by HG and by PFC. Thus, it seems that BFR may not be the best option when aiming to
suppress HG.

Comment this abstract (0 comments)