Authors:
Robert W. Spitz Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, MS, USA

Search for other papers by Robert W. Spitz in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Jun Seob Song Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, MS, USA

Search for other papers by Jun Seob Song in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Yujiro Yamada Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, MS, USA

Search for other papers by Yujiro Yamada in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Vickie Wong Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, MS, USA

Search for other papers by Vickie Wong in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Zachary W. Bell Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Exercise Metabolism and Nutrition Research Laboratory, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Search for other papers by Zachary W. Bell in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Ryo Kataoka Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, MS, USA

Search for other papers by Ryo Kataoka in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Jeremy P. Loenneke Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, MS, USA

Search for other papers by Jeremy P. Loenneke in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5409-9075
Restricted access

Abstract

Previous work has found that wide cuffs produce greater discomfort with elbow flexion exercise than narrower cuffs. It is our hypothesis that this is due to the balling up of the biceps underneath the cuff that is more pronounced with a wider cuff. One method to test this is through an upper body exercise where there is no contraction of the biceps.

Purpose

To investigate the effects of cuff width on discomfort following isometric handgrip exercise.

Methods

One hundred participants completed this experiment. In a randomized order, the participants performed four sets of two-minute isometric handgrip contractions with thirty seconds of rest at thirty percent of their maximal voluntary contraction with a 5 and 12 cm cuff inflated to 40% of arterial occlusion pressure. Discomfort ratings (0–100) were given after the fourth set of exercise. Average force was recorded for all four sets.

Results

There was no difference in discomfort (BF10 = 0.158) [median difference (95% credible interval) −0.997 (−3.360, 1.283) arbitrary units], or in average force (BF10 = 0.132) [median difference (95% credible interval) 0.08 (−0.199, 0.372) kilograms], between cuff conditions. There did not appear to be a greater preference for either cuff. Forty people preferred the narrow cuff (BF10 = 0.325), forty people preferred the wide cuff (BF10 = 0.325), and twenty people had no preference (BF10 = 7.719).

Conclusion

Cuff width does not appear to influence discomfort or the average force produced. This provides support for our hypothesis that the shape of the muscle may interact with wider cuff sizes, leading to greater discomfort.

  • 1.

    Jessee MB, Buckner SL, Mouser JG, Mattocks KT, Dankel SJ, Abe T, et al. Muscle adaptations to high-load training and very low-load training with and without blood flow restriction. Front Physiol 2018; 9: 1448. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01448.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Nielsen JL, Aagaard P, Bech RD, Nygaard T, Hvid LG, Wernbom M, et al. Proliferation of myogenic stem cells in human skeletal muscle in response to low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction. J Physiol 2012; 590(17): 43514361. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2012.237008.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Hunt JE, Galea D, Tufft G, Bunce D, Ferguson RA. Time course of regional vascular adaptations to low load resistance training with blood flow restriction. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2013; 115(3): 403411. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00040.2013.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Mouser JG, Mattocks KT, Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, Jessee MB, Bell ZW, et al. High-pressure blood flow restriction with very low load resistance training results in peripheral vascular adaptations similar to heavy resistance training. Physiol Meas 2019; 40(3): 035003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6579/ab0d2a.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Spitz RW, Wong V, Bell ZW, Viana RB, Chatakondi RN, Abe T, et al. Blood flow restricted exercise and discomfort: a review. J Strength Cond Res 2022; 36(3): 871879. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003525.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Wernbom M, Augustsson J, Thomee R. Effects of vascular occlusion on muscular endurance in dynamic knee extension exercise at different submaximal loads. J Strength Cond Res 2006; 20(2): 372377. https://doi.org/10.1519/R-16884.1.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Mattocks KT, Jessee MB, Counts BR, Buckner SL, Grant Mouser J, Dankel SJ, et al. The effects of upper body exercise across different levels of blood flow restriction on arterial occlusion pressure and perceptual responses. Physiol Behav 2017; 171: 181186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.01.015.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Loenneke JP, Kim D, Mouser JG, Allen KM, Thiebaud RS, Abe T, et al. Are there perceptual differences to varying levels of blood flow restriction? Physiol Behav 2016; 157: 277280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.02.022.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Soligon SD, Lixandrao ME, Biazon T, Angleri V, Roschel H, Libardi CA. Lower occlusion pressure during resistance exercise with blood-flow restriction promotes lower pain and perception of exercise compared to higher occlusion pressure when the total training volume is equalized. Physiol Int 2018; 105(3): 276284. https://doi.org/10.1556/2060.105.2018.3.18.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Rossow LM, Fahs CA, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, Sherk VD, Abe T, et al. Cardiovascular and perceptual responses to blood-flow-restricted resistance exercise with differing restrictive cuffs. Clin Physiol Funct Imag 2012; 32(5): 331337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-097X.2012.01131.x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Spitz RW, Chatakondi RN, Bell ZW, Wong V, Dankel SJ, Abe T, et al. The impact of cuff width and biological sex on cuff preference and the perceived discomfort to blood-flow-restricted arm exercise. Physiol Meas 2019; 40(5): 055001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6579/ab1787.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Spitz RW, Chatakondi RN, Bell ZW, Wong V, Viana RB, Dankel SJ, et al. Blood flow restriction exercise: effects of sex, cuff width, and cuff pressure on perceived lower body discomfort. Percept Mot Skills 2021; 128(1): 353374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512520948295.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Dankel SJ, Buckner SL, Counts BR, Jessee MB, Mouser JG, Mattocks KT, et al. The acute muscular response to two distinct blood flow restriction protocols. Physiol Int 2017; 104(1): 6476. https://doi.org/10.1556/2060.104.2017.1.1.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, Counts BR, Jessee MB, Mouser JG, Mattocks KT, et al. Influence of cuff material on blood flow restriction stimulus in the upper body. J Physiol Sci 2017; 67(1): 207215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12576-016-0457-0.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Laurentino GC, Loenneke JP, Teixeira EL, Nakajima E, Iared W, Tricoli V. The effect of cuff width on muscle adaptations after blood flow restriction training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2016; 48(5): 920925. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000833.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Motykie GD, Zebala LP, Caprini JA, Lee CE, Arcelus JI, Reyna J, et al. A guide to venous thromboembolism risk factor assessment. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2000; 9(3): 253262. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1018770712660.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Song JS, Yamada Y, Wong V, Bell ZW, Spitz RW, Abe T, et al. Hypoalgesia following isometric handgrip exercise with and without blood flow restriction is not mediated by discomfort nor changes in systolic blood pressure. J Sports Sci 2022; 40(5): 518526. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2021.2003569.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Steele J, Fisher J, McKinnon S, McKinnon P. Differentiation between perceived effort and discomfort during resistance training in older adults: reliability of trainee ratings of effort and discomfort, and reliability and validity of trainer ratings of trainee effort. J Trainology 2016; 6(1): 18. https://doi.org/10.17338/trainology.6.1_1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Wagenmakers EJ, Love J, Marsman M, Jamil T, Ly A, Verhagen J, et al. Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: example applications with JASP. Psychon Bull Rev 2018; 25(1): 5876. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1323-7.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Mouser JG, Dankel SJ, Jessee MB, Mattocks KT, Buckner SL, Counts BR, et al. A tale of three cuffs: the hemodynamics of blood flow restriction. Eur J Appl Physiol 2017; 117(7): 14931499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-017-3644-7.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Box AG, North JR, Whitney AJ, Newton EP, Feito Y, Petruzzello SJ. Preference and tolerance for high-intensity exercise performance and enjoyment. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol 2022: 111. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2022.2057568.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand

 

 

The author instruction is available in PDF.

Please, download the file from HERE

 

 

Editor-in-Chief

László ROSIVALL (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)

Managing Editor

Anna BERHIDI (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)

Co-Editors

  • Gábor SZÉNÁSI (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Ákos KOLLER (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Zsolt RADÁK (University of Physical Education, Budapest, Hungary)
  • László LÉNÁRD (University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Zoltán UNGVÁRI (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)

Assistant Editors

  • Gabriella DÖRNYEI (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Zsuzsanna MIKLÓS (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • György NÁDASY (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)

Hungarian Editorial Board

  • György BENEDEK (University of Szeged, Hungary)
  • Zoltán BENYÓ (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Mihály BOROS (University of Szeged, Hungary)
  • László CSERNOCH (University of Debrecen, Hungary)
  • Magdolna DANK (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • László DÉTÁRI (Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Zoltán GIRICZ (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary and Pharmahungary Group, Szeged, Hungary)
  • Zoltán HANTOS (Semmelweis University, Budapest and University of Szeged, Hungary)
  • Zoltán HEROLD (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary) 
  • László HUNYADI (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Gábor JANCSÓ (University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Zoltán KARÁDI (University of Pecs, Hungary)
  • Miklós PALKOVITS (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Gyula PAPP (University of Szeged, Hungary)
  • Gábor PAVLIK (University of Physical Education, Budapest, Hungary)
  • András SPÄT (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Gyula SZABÓ (University of Szeged, Hungary)
  • Zoltán SZELÉNYI (University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Lajos SZOLLÁR (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Gyula TELEGDY (MTA-SZTE, Neuroscience Research Group and University of Szeged, Hungary)
  • József TOLDI (MTA-SZTE Neuroscience Research Group and University of Szeged, Hungary)
  • Árpád TÓSAKI (University of Debrecen, Hungary)

International Editorial Board

  • Dragan DJURIC (University of Belgrade, Serbia)
  • Christopher H.  FRY (University of Bristol, UK)
  • Stephen E. GREENWALD (Blizard Institute, Barts and Queen Mary University of London, UK)
  • Osmo Otto Päiviö HÄNNINEN (Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Kuopio, Finland)
  • Helmut G. HINGHOFER-SZALKAY (Medical University of Graz, Austria)
  • Tibor HORTOBÁGYI (University of Groningen, Netherlands)
  • George KUNOS (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA)
  • Massoud MAHMOUDIAN (Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran)
  • Tadaaki MANO (Gifu University of Medical Science, Japan)
  • Luis Gabriel NAVAR (Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, USA)
  • Hitoo NISHINO (Nagoya City University, Japan)
  • Ole H. PETERSEN (Cardiff University, UK)
  • Ulrich POHL (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research and Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Planegg, Germany)
  • Andrej A. ROMANOVSKY (University of Arizona, USA)
  • Anwar Ali SIDDIQUI (Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan)
  • Csaba SZABÓ (University of Fribourg, Switzerland)
  • Eric VICAUT (Université de Paris, UMRS 942 INSERM, France)
  • Nico WESTERHOF (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

 

Editorial Correspondence:
Physiology International
Semmelweis University
Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Translational Medicine
Nagyvárad tér 4, H-1089 Budapest, Hungary
Phone/Fax: +36-1-2100-100
E-mail: pi@semmelweis-univ.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Biological Abstracts
  • BIOSIS Previews
  • CAB Abstracts
  • CABELLS Journalytics
  • EMBASE/Excerpta Medica
  • Global Health
  • Index Copernicus
  • Index Medicus
  • Medline
  • Referativnyi Zhurnal
  • SCOPUS
  • WoS - Science Citation Index Expanded

 

2022  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
335
Journal Impact Factor 1.4
Rank by Impact Factor

Physiology (Q4)

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
1.4
5 Year
Impact Factor
1.6
Journal Citation Indicator 0.42
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

Physiology (Q4)

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
33
Scimago
Journal Rank
0.362
Scimago Quartile Score

Physiology (medical) (Q3)
Medicine (miscellaneous) (Q3)

Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
2.8
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Physiology 68/102 (33rd PCTL)
Scopus
SNIP
0.508

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
330
Journal Impact Factor 1,697
Rank by Impact Factor

Physiology 73/81

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
1,697
5 Year
Impact Factor
1,806
Journal Citation Indicator 0,47
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

Physiology 69/86

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
31
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,32
Scimago Quartile Score Medicine (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Physiology (medical) (Q3)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
2,7
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Physiology (medical) 69/101 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,591

 

2020  
Total Cites 245
WoS
Journal
Impact Factor
2,090
Rank by Physiology 62/81 (Q4)
Impact Factor  
Impact Factor 1,866
without
Journal Self Cites
5 Year 1,703
Impact Factor
Journal  0,51
Citation Indicator  
Rank by Journal  Physiology 67/84 (Q4)
Citation Indicator   
Citable 42
Items
Total 42
Articles
Total 0
Reviews
Scimago 29
H-index
Scimago 0,417
Journal Rank
Scimago Physiology (medical) Q3
Quartile Score  
Scopus 270/1140=1,9
Scite Score  
Scopus Physiology (medical) 71/98 (Q3)
Scite Score Rank  
Scopus 0,528
SNIP  
Days from  172
submission  
to acceptance  
Days from  106
acceptance  
to publication  

2019  
Total Cites
WoS
137
Impact Factor 1,410
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
1,361
5 Year
Impact Factor
1,221
Immediacy
Index
0,294
Citable
Items
34
Total
Articles
33
Total
Reviews
1
Cited
Half-Life
2,1
Citing
Half-Life
9,3
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00028
Article Influence
Score
0,215
% Articles
in
Citable Items
97,06
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,03445
Average
IF
Percentile
12,963
Scimago
H-index
27
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,267
Scopus
Scite Score
235/157=1,5
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
Physiology (medical) 73/99 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,38

 

Physiology International
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 1100 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2023 Online subsscription: 664 EUR / 806 USD
Print + online subscription: 776 EUR / 942 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

Physiology International
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation
2006 (1950)
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Magyar Tudományos Akadémia
Founder's
Address
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2498-602X (Print)
ISSN 2677-0164 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Dec 2023 42 0 0
Jan 2024 52 4 2
Feb 2024 40 0 0
Mar 2024 42 1 2
Apr 2024 22 0 0
May 2024 7 0 0
Jun 2024 0 0 0