↓ Skip to main content

The Effects of Blood Flow Restriction on Upper-Body Musculature Located Distal and Proximal to Applied Pressure

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
26 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
412 Mendeley
Title
The Effects of Blood Flow Restriction on Upper-Body Musculature Located Distal and Proximal to Applied Pressure
Published in
Sports Medicine, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40279-015-0407-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott J. Dankel, Matthew B. Jessee, Takashi Abe, Jeremy P. Loenneke

Abstract

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training has been shown to increase muscle size and strength when combined with low-load [20-30 % one-repetition maximum (1RM)] resistance training in the lower body. Fewer studies have examined low-load BFR training in combination with upper body exercise, which may differ as some musculature cannot be directly restricted by the BFR stimulus (chest, shoulders). The objective of this study was to examine muscle adaptations occurring in the upper body in response to low-load BFR training. Google Scholar, PubMed, and SPORTDiscus were searched through July 2015 using the key phrases 'blood flow restriction training', 'occlusion resistance training', and 'KAATSU'. Upper body training studies implementing the BFR stimulus and providing a pre and post measure of muscle size and/or strength were included. A total of 19 articles met the inclusion criteria for this review. The effectiveness of low-load BFR training appears to be minimally impacted by alterations to the intensity and restrictive pressures used; however, the ability to quantitatively analyze our results was limited by unstandardized protocols. Low-load BFR training increased muscle size and strength in limbs located proximal (chest, shoulders) and distal (biceps, triceps) to the restrictive stimulus; while volume-matched exercise in the absence of BFR did not elicit beneficial muscle adaptations. Some of the musculature in the upper body cannot be directly restricted by the application of BFR. Despite this, increases in muscle size and strength were observed in muscles placed under direct and indirect BFR.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 412 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 410 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 73 18%
Student > Bachelor 71 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 7%
Researcher 23 6%
Other 63 15%
Unknown 122 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 107 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 68 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 63 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 3%
Neuroscience 9 2%
Other 26 6%
Unknown 128 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,453,145
of 24,991,957 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,165
of 2,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,627
of 283,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#26
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,991,957 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,879 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,878 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.