Table 1.
| Jacobs et al. (7) | Rolnick et al. (8) | |
|---|---|---|
| Participants | 56 physically active adults (31M, 25F); 27.7 ± 9.7 years old | 20 physically active adults (13M, 7F); 23 ± 5 years old |
| Protocol | 4 sets of unilateral leg extensions (90˚ flexion to extension range of motion) to volitional failure performed at ∼20% 1RM with 4 scheme with 45 s inter-set rest and 2 s concentric/eccentric tempo. | 4 sets of bilateral dumbbell wall squat exercise (90˚ flexion to extension range of motion) performed at ∼20% 1RM to volitional failure with 60 s of inter-set rest and 2 s concentric/eccentric tempo. |
| BFR Device | SmartCuffs Generation 3 PRO (10.14 cm width) | Delfi Personalized Tourniquet Device (11.5 cm width) |
| BFR Pressures/Application | 60% LOP determined in sitting (average applied pressure: ∼131 mmHg) applied continuously and deflated after set 4. | 60% LOP determined in supine (average applied pressure: 113 [left leg]-123 [right leg] mmHg) applied continuously and deflated after set 4. |
| Repetitions Performed | AUTO achieved 29.6% increase in total reps over NAUTO (199 vs. 161). | No differences in total repetitions performed between AUTO and NAUTO (53 vs. 52). |
| Perceptual Responses | Statistically lower RPE in AUTO compared to NAUTO (17.2 vs. 17.7; classified as “very hard” exertion) Statistically lower RPD in AUTO compared to NAUTO (8.1 vs. 8.5; classified as “very severe” discomfort) |
No differences in RPE between AUTO compared to NAUTO (8.2 vs. 8.5 on 1-10 Borg RPE scale; classified as “really hard”) No differences in RPD between AUTO and NAUTO (6.2 vs. 6.6; classified as “high” discomfort) |
| Author Conclusions | AUTO allows for greater exercise performance compared to NAUTO with less RPE/RPD. | The presence of AUTO has negligible impact on exercise performance and perceptual responses compared to NAUTO. |
AUTO, autoregulated; NAUTO, unregulated; BFR, blood flow restriction; 1RM, one-repetition maximum; RPE, rating of perceived exertion; RPD, rating of perceived discomfort.