The main goal of the present study was to evaluate the effects of different blood flow restriction (BFR) protocols (continuous and intermittent) on peak bar velocity (PV) and mean bar velocity (MV) during the squat exercise at progressive loads, from 40 to 90% 1RM. Eleven healthy men (age = 23.4 ± 3.1 years; body mass = 88.5 ± 12.1 kg; squat 1RM = 183.2 ± 30.7 kg; resistance training experience, 5.7 ± 3.6 years) performed experimental sessions once a week for 3 weeks in random and counterbalanced order: without BFR (NO-BFR), with intermittent BFR (I-BFR), and with continuous BFR (C-BFR). During the experimental session, the participants performed six sets of the barbell squat exercise with loads from 40 to 90% 1RM. In each set, they performed two repetitions. During the C-BFR session, the cuffs were maintained throughout the training session. During the I-BFR, the cuffs were used only during the exercise and released for each rest interval. The BFR pressure was set to ∼80% arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). Analyses of variance showed a statistically significant interaction for MV (p < 0.02; η2 = 0.18). However, the post hoc analysis did not show significant differences between particular conditions for particular loads. There was no significant condition × load interaction for PV (p = 0.16; η2 = 0.13). Furthermore, there were no main effects for conditions in MV (p = 0.38; η2 = 0.09) as well as in PV (p = 0.94; η2 = 0.01). The results indicate that the different BFR protocols used during lower body resistance exercises did not reduce peak bar velocity and mean bar velocity during the squat exercise performed with various loads.

This study evaluated the effects of continuous and intermittent blood flow restriction (BFR) with 70% of full arterial occlusion pressure on bar velocity during the bench press exercise against a wide range of resistive loads. Eleven strength-trained males (age: 23.5 ± 1.4 years; resistance training experience: 2.8 ± 0.8 years, maximal bench press strength - 1RM = 101.8 ± 13.9 kg; body mass = 79.8 ± 10.4 kg), performed three different testing protocols in random and counterbalanced order: without BFR (NO-BFR); intermittent BFR (I-BFR) and continuous BFR (C-BFR). During each experimental session, subjects performed eight sets of two repetitions each, with increasing loads from 20 to 90% 1RM (10% steps), and 3 min rest between each set. In the C-BFR condition occlusion was kept throughout the trial, while in the I-BFR, occlusion was released during each 3 min rest interval. Peak bar velocity (PV) during the bench press exercise was higher by 12-17% in both I-BFR and C-BFR compared with NO-BFR only at the loads of 20, 30, 40, and 50% 1RM (p < 0.001), while performance at higher loads remained unchanged. Mean bar velocity (MV) was unaffected by occlusion (p = 0.342). These results indicate that BFR during bench press exercise increases PV and this may be used as an enhanced stimulus during explosive resistance training. At higher workloads, bench press performance was not negatively affected by BFR, indicating that the benefits of exercise under occlusion can be obtained while explosive performance is not impaired.

This study evaluated the effects of ischemic conditioning on power output and bar velocity in the bench press exercise. Ten healthy males (age: 25 ± 2 years; body mass: 92 ± 8 kg; bench press one repetition maximum -1RM: 145 ± 13 kg), took part in two experimental sessions (with and without ischemia), 1 week apart in random and counterbalanced order. In the ischemic condition, cuffs placed around the upper part of the arms were inflated to 80% of arterial occlusion pressure before each set, while in the control condition there was no blood flow restriction. The exercise protocol included 5 sets of three repetitions each, against a resistance equal to 60% 1RM, with 5 min recovery intervals between sets. There was a main effect of condition for mean power output (MP) and mean bar velocity (MV) (p = 0.01), with overall MP being higher in ischemia than in control by 5.6 ± 4.1% (mean ± 90% compatibility limits), a standardized effect size (ES) of 0.51. Overall MV was also higher by 5.5 ± 4.0%, ES = 0.63. Peak power output (PP) and peak bar velocity (PV) were similar in set 1 of the control and ischemia condition (1039 ± 105 vs. 1054 ± 82 W; 684 ± 74 vs. 696 ± 53 W; 1.09 ± 0.07 vs. 1.12 ± 0.09 m/s; 0.81 ± 0.05 vs. 0.82 ± 0.05 m/s, p = 0.67 to 0.99, mean ± standard deviation). However, from set 3 onward (p = 0.03 to 0.001), PP and PV were higher in ischemia compared with control, with the highest difference observed in set 5 (10.9 ± 5.9%, ES = 0.73 for PP and 8.6 ± 4.6%; ES = 0.89 for PV). These results indicate that ischemia used before each set of the bench press exercise increases power output and bar velocity and this may be used as performance-enhancing stimulus during explosive resistance training.

In this study, we examined the impact of contrast movement tempo (fast vs. slow) on power output and bar velocity during the bench press exercise. Ten healthy men (age = 26.9 ± 4.1 years; body mass = 90.5 ± 10.3 kg; bench press 1RM = 136.8 ± 27.7 kg) with significant experience in resistance training (9.4 ± 5.6 years) performed the bench press exercise under three conditions: with an explosive tempo of movement in each of three repetitions (E/E/E = explosive, explosive, explosive); with a slow tempo of movement in the first repetition and an explosive tempo in the next two repetitions (S/E/E = slow, explosive, explosive); and with a slow tempo of movement in the first two repetitions and an explosive tempo in the last repetition (S/S/E = slow, slow, explosive). The slow repetitions were performed with a 5/0/5/0 (eccentric/isometric/concentric/isometric) movement tempo, while the explosive repetitions were performed with an X/0/X/0 (X- maximal speed of movement) movement tempo. During each experimental session, the participants performed one set of three repetitions at 60%1RM. The two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed a statistically significant interaction effect for peak power output (PP; p = 0.03; η 2 = 0.26) and for peak bar velocity (PV; p = 0.04; η 2 = 0.24). Futhermore there was a statistically significant main effect of condition for PP (p = 0.04; η 2 = 0.30) and PV (p = 0.02; η 2 = 0.35). The post hoc analysis for interaction revealed that PP was significantly higher in the 2nd and 3rd repetition for E/E/E compared with the S/S/E (p < 0.01 for both) and significantly higher in the 2nd repetition for the S/E/E compared with S/S/E (p < 0.01). The post hoc analysis for interaction revealed that PV was significantly higher in the 2nd and 3rd repetition for E/E/E compared with the S/S/E (p < 0.01 for both), and significantly higher in the 2nd repetition for the S/E/E compared with the S/S/E (p < 0.01). The post hoc analysis for main effect of condition revealed that PP and PV was significantly higher for the E/E/E compared to the S/S/E (p = 0.04; p = 0.02; respectively). The main finding of this study was that different distribution of movement tempo during a set has a significant impact on power output and bar velocity in the bench press exercise at 60%1RM. However, the use of one slow repetition at the beginning of a set does not decrease the level of power output in the third repetition of that set.

The main goal of the present study was to evaluate the acute effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) at 70% of full arterial occlusion pressure on strength-endurance performance during the bench press exercise. The study included 14 strength-trained male subjects (age = 25.6 ± 4.1 years; body mass = 81.7 ± 10.8 kg; bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM) = 130.0 ± 22.1 kg), experienced in resistance training (3.9 ± 2.4 years). During the experimental sessions in a randomized crossover design, the subjects performed three sets of the bench press at 80% 1RM performed to failure with two different conditions: without BFR (CON); and with BFR (BFR). Friedman's test showed significant differences between BFR and CON conditions for the number of repetitions performed (p < 0.001); for peak bar velocity (p < 0.001) and for mean bar velocity (p < 0.001). The pairwise comparisons showed a significant decrease for peak bar velocity and mean bar velocity in individual Set 1 for BFR when compared to CON conditions (p = 0.01 for both). The two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant main effect for the time under tension (p = 0.02). A post-hoc comparisons for the main effect showed a significant increase in time under tension for BFR when compared to CON (p = 0.02). The results of the presented study indicate that BFR used during strength-endurance exercise generally does not decrease the level of endurance performance, while it causes a drop in bar velocity.