↓ 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 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 158 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 25%
Student > Bachelor 30 19%
Unspecified 20 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 42 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 59 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 18%
Unspecified 26 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Other 14 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 07 November 2018.
All research outputs
#600,410
of 12,896,547 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#616
of 2,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,099
of 250,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#24
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,896,547 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 250,205 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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.