Passive Strategies for the Prevention of Muscle Wasting During Recovery from Sports Injuries

  • Pedro L. ValenzuelaEmail author
  • Javier S. Morales
  • Alejandro Lucia
Review article



Recovery from sport injuries commonly involves a muscle disuse situation (i.e., reduction in physical activity levels sometimes preceded by joint immobilization) with subsequent negative effects on muscle mass and function.


To summarize the current body of knowledge on the effectiveness of different physical strategies that are currently available to mitigate the negative effects of muscle disuse during recovery from sports injury.


A narrative review was conducted to summarize the information available on neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), blood flow restriction (BFR) and vibration intervention.


The concomitant application of BFR and low-intensity exercise has shown promising results in the prevention of disuse-induced muscle atrophy. Some benefits might also be obtained with BFR alone (i.e., with no exercise), but evidence is still inconclusive. NMES, which can be applied both passively and synchronously with exercise, can also attenuate most of the negative changes associated with disuse periods. In turn, the mechanical stimulus elicited by vibration seems effective to reduce the loss of bone mineral density that accompanies muscle disuse and could also provide some benefits at the muscle tissue level.


Different physical strategies are available to attenuate disuse-induced negative consequences during recovery from injury. These interventions can be applied passively, which makes them feasible during the first stages of the recovery. However, it would be advisable to apply these strategies in conjunction with low-intensity voluntary exercise as soon as this is feasible.


Skeletal muscle Rehabilitation Training Muscle wasting Immobilization Injury 


The risk of musculoskeletal injuries is inherent in exercise practice and especially competitive sport. Injuries and the subsequent recovery period can lead to several negative consequences not only for the athlete—including physical, psychological and societal complications—but also for the team, especially at a tactical level as the injured athlete must temporarily refrain from competition [14, 32].

The physical consequences of a sports injury vary depending upon its nature and severity. However, most injuries result in a temporary cessation (or at least a reduction) of activity although sometimes an immobilization period might also be needed during the first phase of recovery. More than half of sports injuries result in at least 1 week of exercise restriction, with 20% of competition injuries being associated with 3 or more weeks of inactivity or premature termination of the competition season [61]. Knee injuries (particularly, anterior cruciate ligament [ACL] injury) are the most prevalent type of injury in many sports [52] and are usually associated with longer duration of recovery [30], which in turn can include an initial phase with joint immobilization [29].

Prolonged physical inactivity or immobilization periods during recovery from injury can result in several negative consequences for the athlete’s health. The skeletal muscle is a highly plastic tissue that is capable of altering its phenotype in response to environmental stimuli [10]. Whereas an increase in mechanical loading stimulates the hypertrophic processes, unloading situations or periods of inactivity such as those needed to recover from sports injuries result in muscle atrophy [25]. Disuse periods as short as 5 days, which are common after sport injuries, have proven to elicit significant negative consequences in young subjects, including a substantial loss of muscle mass (3.5%) and strength (9%), with activation of catabolic signaling pathways [83]. In addition, disuse periods are accompanied by a loss of bone mineral density (BMD) [69] and an impaired cardiovascular capacity, with a loss in maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) and cardiac output of 0.99% and 1.6% per day, respectively, during the first 2 weeks of bed rest [12].

Given the aforementioned deleterious effects of disuse situations, implementation of interventions aiming at accelerating the rate of healing and shortening the time needed before returning to competition is a major issue in sports. In this respect, several biological mechanisms underlying disuse-related muscle wasting might be involved (e.g., mitochondrial dysfunction with subsequent increased oxidative stress, reduction in myogenic capacity, systemic inflammation) and some remain to be elucidated, with muscle wasting ultimately resulting from an imbalance between muscle protein synthesis (MPS) and breakdown (MPB) [65]. Specifically, decreases in MPS seem to be the main determinants of muscle wasting during disuse situations [58]. In this respect, dietary protein intake is a powerful stimulus for MPS promotion [5], and for this reason, nutritional strategies (notably amino acid/protein supplementation and use of antioxidant compounds or anti-inflammatory drugs) have been a focus of attention for attenuating muscle wasting during disuse situations [50, 79, 84, 85]. However, the importance of physical strategies is often disregarded.

The recovery from an injury is usually divided in two main stages. The first one, which corresponds to the healing and recovery phase, usually involves a reduction in activity levels or a complete immobilization period lasting from a few days up to several weeks. During the second stage, physical activity is progressively increased until the return to a normal sport training regime. In this respect, although light voluntary exercise appears as the most effective intervention for preventing or attenuating disuse-induced adverse effects, its feasibility is quite limited during periods of forced bed rest, limb immobilization or general weakness (e.g., during the aforementioned first stage of recovery from injury). The aim of the present narrative review is to summarize and discuss the different passive physical strategies that can be applied to prevent disuse-induced muscle atrophy during the first stage of recovery from a sport injury (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Summary of deleterious effects of disuse periods that could be improved by physical strategies

Blood Flow Restriction and Vascular Occlusion

Although controversy exists [82], one of the processes that is thought to facilitate hypertrophy is metabolic stress [66], which can be induced by resistance exercise training (RET) to failure but also by other strategies such as blood flow restriction (BFR) [60]. BFR is usually accomplished by inflating a cuff around the proximal part of the target limb to a pressure that blocks venous blood return without concomitantly blocking arterial inflow into the muscle [45, 46, 47]. BFR induces an increased release in growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), as a consequence of metabolite and H+ accumulation [35, 75], thereby facilitating anabolic processes and stimulating MPS [23, 86]. In addition, BFR elicits an increase in heat shock protein-72 [38], which can protect proteins from stress-induced injury [68]. Therefore, BFR may be considered for the prevention of disuse-induced muscle atrophy, with meta-analytic evidence in fact supporting its effectiveness for increasing muscle mass and strength in the general population [45, 46, 47, 70] and in the rehabilitation field [34].

Two daily sessions of BFR alone (i.e., with no exercise) with a pressure high enough to elicit arterial occlusion (i.e., five repetitions of 5 min duration with a cuff pressure of 238 mmHg separated by a 3 min-recovery without occlusion) for 2 weeks have proven effective in attenuating the reduction in quadriceps cross-sectional area in subjects who could not exercise due to knee immobilization following ACL reconstruction surgery [76]. A similar BFR protocol proved to be even more effective than isometric RET for preventing loss of muscle mass and strength in subjects who had a casted knee for 2 weeks [41], although no benefits have been found in muscle mass with a restriction pressure below 50 mmHg [40]. Therefore, although there is still some controversy, high levels of BFR (~ 200 mmHg) might be an effective passive strategy for the prevention of disuse-induced muscle mass when volitional exercise is not feasible.

Importantly, BFR seems especially useful in increasing muscle mass and strength when applied simultaneously with low-intensity physical exercise (also known as “KAATSU” training) which is sometimes feasible during the first stages of the recovery from an injury [45, 46, 47]. A recent study found increases in MPS rates and activation of anabolic signaling pathways when BFR (up to 200 mmHg) was applied in healthy subjects simultaneously with exercise but not when applied under resting conditions [54]. As this study was conducted in healthy individuals, further research should address if the application of BFR under resting conditions can stimulate MPS in other populations (e.g., disuse situations, injured athletes). Walking twice a day for a duration of 10 min while BFR is applied to the lower limbs is sufficient to induce muscle hypertrophy [2] and to increase markers of bone anabolism [6] in young healthy men. Moreover, performing low volume endurance exercise (15 min at 40% of maximum oxygen uptake [VO2max]) concomitantly with BFR elicits greater benefits in muscle mass and strength than 45 min of the same exercise without BFR [1]. Low-intensity exercise training during BFR is also an effective tool in the rehabilitation context as confirmed by a recent meta-analysis of 20 studies [34]. For instance, low-load RET in combination with BFR has been proven to accelerate the recovery of muscle mass in subjects submitted to ACL reconstruction [55], although some conflicting results have been reported in athletes [36]. Cook et al. [13] showed that the combination of BFR together with low-intensity RET prevented loss of muscle mass and strength in healthy subjects during a 30-day period of unilateral lower limb suspension. Other authors showed that the effects on muscle mass and strength of applying BFR simultaneously with low-intensity RET during a rehabilitation programme were similar to those elicited by high-intensity RET alone [42].

On the other hand, in order to ensure safety without compromising intervention efficacy, some methodological issues should be considered [67]. Notably, BFR pressure should not surpass 80% of the arterial occlusion pressure [67]. In this regard, targeting a score of 7 on a perceived pressure scale ranging from 0 to 10 (with 10 indicating most intense pressure) has been proposed as a more practical and feasible (albeit less accurate) option [87]. Wider cuffs (i.e., 6–13.5 cm), which allow the achievement of occlusion at lower pressures, are recommended for the legs whereas 3–6 cm is the recommended range for the arms [67]. Furthermore, to maximize adaptations it would be advisable to perform a progression of the stimulus from the application of BFR alone during bed rest or total inactivity to its use simultaneously with light endurance exercise or low-load RET (i.e., at 20–40% of one-repetition maximum) [45, 46, 47, 67].

Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is the transcutaneous application of electrical currents to a muscle group thereby depolarizing motor neurons and resulting in actual muscle contraction [81]. Because this modality can generate involuntary muscle tension, it is frequently used as a passive surrogate of active training in several populations. NMES has been proposed as effective in the sport context [26, 27, 49, 62], and it could also be beneficial for clinical populations [48]. Indeed, NMES acts as an “exercise simulator”. On the one hand, low-frequency NMES can activate the same signaling pathway as endurance exercise (notably, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1-alpha [PGC-1α]). In turn, high-frequency NMES activates the same signaling pathways as RET (i.e., mammalian target of rapamycin [mTOR], which promotes the activation of insulin and IGF-1 receptors) [4]. NMES has also proven to activate the same corticomotor pathways as voluntary exercise [9, 22]. Moreover, it induces a synchronic motor unit recruitment that is independent of muscle fiber type, and thus high loads are not needed to recruit type II muscle fibers [8]. For these reasons, this technique could be especially useful for populations with difficulties in performing exercise (e.g., during the first stages of recovery from injury) [11, 17, 84].

NMES has been proven to be effective for preventing the reduction of MPS, muscle mass and strength after ACL injury [15, 24, 78]. NMES also attenuates loss of oxidative enzymatic activity and leg muscle mass/strength in subjects submitted to 30 days of bed rest [18]. Dirks et al. [16] found that NMES increased MPS and inhibited the activation of protein degradation pathways in subjects with knee immobilization for 5 days, thereby preventing muscle mass loss [16]. In addition, NMES increases muscular and functional resistance especially in clinical patients [81], as well as muscle oxidative capacity [19] and VO2max [44, 80]. In addition, similar to endurance training, NMES increases antioxidant capacity [26, 27], therefore proving useful in reducing the redox imbalance elicited by disuse periods [57].

On the other hand, some authors have reported benefits at the neural level after NMES [26, 27, 28]. Yet, whether these benefits are translated into dynamic actions remains unclear [26, 27]. In this respect, although NMES is usually administered passively, it can also be applied simultaneously with (or “superimposed onto”) voluntary physical exercise (i.e., eliciting electrically-evoked contractions at the same time that the patient performs voluntary exercise). The rationale for applying NMES superimposed onto exercise is based on the hypothesis that, owing to the synchronic recruitment pattern of NMES, more motor units would be recruited than with voluntary exercise alone. Although there is controversy regarding the additional benefits of “superimposed” NMES in trained subjects vs voluntary exercise alone, the former could be effective in untrained subjects or in patients [56]. Notably, superimposed NMES seems more effective than voluntary exercise alone for the prevention of muscle atrophy, muscle oxidative capacity and strength loss and for the recovery of knee functionality and gait kinematics after ligament surgery [20, 71]. However, a previous study found that voluntary exercise is at least as beneficial as superimposed NMES, although the latter could produce additional benefits in weaker muscles [31].

Regarding methodological recommendations for NMES sessions—which typically last ~ 30 to 60 min—stimulation frequency and pulse (biphasic rectangular pulses) duration should range between 50–75 Hz and 100–400 µs, respectively, and the intensity applied should be the highest tolerable to maximize force production [48]. Sessions should be every day or even several times a day in patients with marked activation deficits (e.g., early after knee surgery), but a low-volume high-intensity approach (i.e., alternate days) should be adopted to target muscle hypertrophy once neural deficits are improved [48].


The potential of a vibratory stimulus (whether applied locally or to the whole body using a platform) to increase muscle mass and performance in healthy subjects has been previously discussed [53]. Previous animal studies applying isolated vibration have reported benefits at the muscle level [21, 37, 74]. Yet, the potential benefits of vibration per se (i.e., independently of RET) on human muscle mass remain to be clearly shown. By contrast, due to the influence of mechanical stimuli on bone anabolism [64] and to the effectiveness of vibration to evoke an involuntary muscle contraction through the activation of stretch reflexes [3, 21], this technique could be potentially useful to mitigate the bone loss associated with immobilization.

The local application of vibration alone can induce significant benefits at the muscular level in populations at risk of muscle atrophy, such as the elderly [59, 77], and there is growing evidence that it can also provide some benefits in young healthy subjects by increasing muscle strength and cortical voluntary activation in the long-term [43, 72, 73]. Moreover, it seems to be effective in preventing bone degeneration associated with disuse situations. In subjects submitted to 90 days of bed rest, 10 min of vibration daily was sufficient to diminish or even circumvent the negative changes at the spinal level associated with immobilization (i.e., increased spinal length, intra-vertebral disc expansion and changes in disc convexity), also reducing the prevalence of back pain [33]. However, the effects on back intrinsic muscle mass did not reach statistical significance. Similarly, Zange et al. [88] did not report benefits on muscle mass after applying a vibratory stimulus twice daily (5 min per session) during 2 weeks of bed rest [88].

On the other hand, the combination of vibration and RET can provide several benefits during disuse situations, including an attenuation in the loss of muscle/mass strength or bone mass [63]. However, because most studies have applied both stimuli synchronously, it is not possible to discern the beneficial effect of the vibratory stimulus per se. Previous research has analyzed whether the combination of vibration together with RET during immobilization periods could provide benefits beyond those provided by RET alone. In subjects submitted to 60 days of bed rest, a vibration stimulus superimposed onto RET proved as effective for the reduction of muscle atrophy, pain and muscle damage as RET alone [51]. However, another study found that ‘superimposed’ vibration provided additional benefits in the reduction of the bone loss during the same immobilization model [7].

Regarding methodological recommendations, there is no clear evidence supporting the optimal vibration protocol. However, it has been recently proposed that a vibratory stimulus with a frequency of 50–120 Hz and an amplitude of 1 mm should be applied to the tendon—rather than the muscle—to optimize the effects of local vibration [73]. By contrast, when using whole body vibration, most studies have used frequencies ranging from 20 to 45 Hz [63] with some evidence supporting the fact that greater myoelectric activity could be achieved with higher frequencies (60 Hz) and amplitudes (4 mm) [39]. Frequencies around or below 5 Hz should be avoided to prevent excessive resonance and caution should be taken with frequencies below 20 Hz [63].

Conclusions and Future Perspectives

The recovery from a sports injury is frequently associated with a period of muscle inactivity or unloading. These situations elicit important deleterious adaptations in the organism at different levels (i.e., metabolic, anthropometric, muscular, cardiovascular and functional) and therefore interventions aimed at increasing the rate of healing and shortening the time needed before returning to normal training and competition is a major issue in sport.

Voluntary physical activity is the most effective intervention for preventing or at least attenuating disuse-induced adverse effects, but it might not be feasible during periods of forced bed rest or limb immobilization. In this respect, several passive strategies might be applied. BFR alone or applied simultaneously with low-intensity exercise has demonstrated promising results for preventing disuse-induced muscle atrophy. The involuntary muscle contractions elicited by NMES training can also reduce the loss of muscle mass, force and oxidative capacity associated with disuse periods. Lastly, the mechanical stimulus elicited by vibration seems effective in reducing the loss of BMD that accompanies these situations and could also provide some benefits at the muscle level. Notwithstanding, it would be advisable to perform a progression of the applied stimuli and ultimately apply these strategies in conjunction with voluntary exercise.



This work is supported by the University of Alcalá (contract number FPI2016 to Valenzuela); the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (contract number FPU14/03435 to Morales); and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias and Fondos FEDER, grant numbers PI15/00558 and PI18/00139 to Lucia).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Abe T, Fujita S, Nakajima T, Sakamaki M, Ozaki H, Ogasawara R, Ishii N. Effects of low-intensity cycle training with restricted leg blood flow on thigh muscle volume and VO2max in Young Men. J Sports Sci Med. 2010;9(3):452–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abe T, Kearns CF, Sato Y. Muscle size and strength are increased following walk training with restricted venous blood flow from the leg muscle, Kaatsu-walk training. J Appl Physiol. 2006;1985(100):1460–6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abercromby AF, Amonette WE, Layne CS, McFarlin BK, Hinman MR, Paloski WH. Variation in neuromuscular responses during acute whole-body vibration exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(9):1642–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atherton PJ, Babraj J, Smith K, Singh J, Rennie MJ, Wackerhage H. Selective activation of AMPK-PGC-1alpha or PKB-TSC2-mTOR signaling can explain specific adaptive responses to endurance or resistance training-like electrical muscle stimulation. FASEB J. 2005;19(7):786–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atherton PJ, Smith K. Muscle protein synthesis in response to nutrition and exercise. J Physiol. 2012;590(5):1049–57.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beekley MD, Sato Y, Abe T. KAATSU-walk training increases serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase in young men. Int J of KAATSU Train Res. 2005;1(2):77–81.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Belavý DL, Beller G, Armbrecht G, Perschel FH, Fitzner R, Bock O, Felsenberg D. Evidence for an additional effect of whole-body vibration above resistive exercise alone in preventing bone loss during prolonged bed rest. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(5):1581–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bickel CS, Gregory CM, Dean JC. Motor unit recruitment during neuromuscular electrical stimulation: a critical appraisal. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111(10):2399–407.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blickenstorfer A, Kleiser R, Keller T, Keisker B, Meyer M, Riener R, Kollias S. Cortical and subcortical correlates of functional electrical stimulation of wrist extensor and flexor muscles revealed by fMRI. Hum Brain Mapp. 2009;30(3):963–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brooks NE, Myburgh KH. Skeletal muscle wasting with disuse atrophy is multi-dimensional: the response and interaction of myonuclei, satellite cells and signaling pathways. Front Physiol. 2014;5:99.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caggiano E, Emrey T, Shirley S, Craik RL. Effects of electrical stimulation or voluntary contraction for strengthening the quadriceps femoris muscles in an aged male population. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1994;20(1):22–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Capelli C, Antonutto G, Kenfack MA, CauteroM Lador F, Moia C, Ferretti G. Factors determining the time course of VO2(max) decay during bedrest: implications for VO2(max) limitation. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;98(2):152–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cook SB, Brown KA, Deruisseau K, Kanaley JA, Ploutz-Snyder LL. Skeletal muscle adaptations following blood flow-restricted training during 30 days of muscular unloading. J Appl Physiol. 2010;1985(109):341–9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cumps E, Verhagen E, Annemans L, Meeusen R. Injury rate and socioeconomic costs resulting from sports injuries in Flanders: data derived from sports insurance statistics 2003. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42(9):767–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Delitto A, McKowen JM, McCarthy JA, Shively RA, Rose SJ. Electrically elicited co-contraction of thigh musculature after anterior cruciate ligament surgery. A description and single-case experiment. Phys Ther. 1988;68(1):45–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dirks ML, Wall BT, Snijders T, Ottenbros CL, Verdijk LB, van Loon LJ. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation prevents muscle disuse atrophy during leg immobilization in humans. Acta Physiol. 2014;210(3):628–41.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dirks ML, Wall BT, van Loon LJC. Interventional strategies to combat muscle disuse atrophy in humans: focus on neuromuscular electrical stimulation and dietary protein. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2018;125(3):850–61.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duvoisin MR, Convertino VA, Buchanan P, Gollnick PD, Dudley GA. Characteristics and preliminary observations of the influence of electromyostimulation on the size and function of human skeletal muscle during 30 days of simulated microgravity. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1989;60(7):671–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Erickson ML, Ryan TE, Backus D, McCully KK. Endurance neuromuscular electrical stimulation training improves skeletal muscle oxidative capacity in individuals with motor-complete spinal cord injury. Muscle Nerve. 2016;55(5):669–75.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eriksson E, Häggmark T. Comparison of isometric muscle training and electrical stimulation supplementing isometric muscle training in the recovery after major knee ligament surgery. A preliminary report. Am J Sports Med. 1979;7(3):169–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Falempin M, In-Albon SF. Influence of brief daily tendon vibration on rat soleus muscle in non-weight-bearing situation. J Appl Physiol. 1999;1985(87):3–9.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Francis S, Lin X, Aboushoushah S, White TP, Phillips M, Bowtell R, Constantinescu CS. fMRI analysis of active, passive and electrically stimulated ankle dorsiflexion. Neuroimage. 2009;44(2):469–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fujita S, Abe T, Drummond MJ, Cadenas JG, Dreyer HC, Sato Y, Rasmussen BB. Blood flow restriction during low-intensity resistance exercise increases S6K1 phosphorylation and muscle protein synthesis. J Appl Physiol. 2007;1985(103):903–10.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gibson JN, Smith K, Rennie MJ. Prevention of disuse muscle atrophy by means of electrical stimulation: maintenance of protein synthesis. Lancet. 1988;2(8614):767–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goldberg AL, Etlinger JD, Goldspink DF, Jablecki C. Mechanism of work-induced hypertrophy of skeletal muscle. Med Sci Sports. 1975;7(3):185–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gondin J, Brocca L, Bellinzona E, D’Antona G, Maffiuletti NA, Miotti D, Bottinelli R. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation training induces atypical adaptations of the human skeletal muscle phenotype: a functional and proteomic analysis. J Appl Physiol. 2011;1985(110):433–50.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gondin J, Cozzone PJ, Bendahan D. Is high-frequency neuromuscular electrical stimulation a suitable tool for muscle performance improvement in both healthy humans and athletes? Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111(10):2473–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gondin J, Guette M, Ballay Y, Martin A. Electromyostimulation training effects on neural drive and muscle architecture. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(8):1291–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grant JA. Updating recommendations for rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction: a review. Clin J Sport Med. 2013;23(6):501–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Griffin LY, Agel J, Albohm MJ, Arendt EA, Dick RW, Garrett WE, Wojtys EM. Noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries: risk factors and prevention strategies. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000;8(3):141–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hartsell HD. Electrical muscle stimulation and isometric exercise effects on selected quadriceps parameters. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1986;8(4):203–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hickey J, Shield AJ, Williams MD, Opar DA. The financial cost of hamstring strain injuries in the Australian Football League. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(8):729–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Holguin N, Muir J, Rubin C, Judex S. Short applications of very low-magnitude vibrations attenuate expansion of the intervertebral disc during extended bed rest. Spine J. 2009;9(6):470–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hughes L, Paton B, Rosenblatt B, Gissane C, Patterson SD. Blood flow restriction training in clinical musculoskeletal rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(13):1003–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Inagaki Y, Madarame H, Neya M, Ishii N. Increase in serum growth hormone induced by electrical stimulation of muscle combined with blood flow restriction. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111(11):2715–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Iversen E, Vibeke R, Larmo A. Intermittent blood flow restriction does not reduce atrophy following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Sport Health Sci. 2016;5(1):115–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaneguchi A, Ozawa J, Kawamata S, Kurose T, Yamaoka K. Intermittent whole-body vibration attenuates a reduction in the number of the capillaries in unloaded rat skeletal muscle. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:315.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kawada S, Ishii N. Skeletal muscle hypertrophy after chronic restriction of venous blood flow in rats. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(7):1144–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Krol P, Piecha M, Slomka K, Sobota G, Polak A, Juras G. The effect of whole-body vibration frequency and amplitude on the myoelectric activity of vastus medialis and vastus lateralis. J Sports Sci Med. 2011;10(1):169–74.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kubota A, Sakuraba K, Koh S, Ogura Y, Tamura Y. Blood flow restriction by low compressive force prevents disuse muscular weakness. J Sci Med Sport. 2011;14(2):95–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kubota A, Sakuraba K, Sawaki K, Sumide T, Tamura Y. Prevention of disuse muscular weakness by restriction of blood flow. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(2):529–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ladlow P, Coppack RJ, Dharm-Datta S, Conway D, Sellon E, Patterson SD, Bennett AN. Low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction improves clinical outcomes in musculoskeletal rehabilitation: a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1269.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lapole T, Pérot C. Effects of repeated Achilles tendon vibration on triceps surae force production. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2010;20(4):648–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lee SY, Im SH, Kim BR, Choi JH, Lee SJ, Han EY. The effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on cardiopulmonary function in healthy adults. Ann Rehabil Med. 2012;36(6):849–56.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Loenneke JP, Abe T, Wilson JM, Thiebaud RS, Fahs CA, Rossow LM, Bemben MG. Blood flow restriction: an evidence based progressive model (review). Acta Physiol Hung. 2012;99(3):235–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Loenneke JP, Fahs CA, Thiebaud RS, Rossow LM, Abe T, Ye X, Bemben MG. The acute muscle swelling effects of blood flow restriction. Acta Physiol Hung. 2012;99(4):400–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Loenneke JP, Wilson JM, Marín PJ, Zourdos MC, Bemben MG. Low intensity blood flow restriction training: a meta-analysis. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(5):1849–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Maffiuletti NA, Gondin J, Place N, Stevens-Lapsley J, Vivodtzev I, Minetto MA. Clinical use of neuromuscular electrical stimulation for neuromuscular rehabilitation: what are we overlooking? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;99(4):806–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Maffiuletti NA, Minetto MA, Farina D, Bottinelli R. Electrical stimulation for neuromuscular testing and training: state-of-the art and unresolved issues. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111(10):2391–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Magne H, Savary-Auzeloux I, Rémond D, Dardevet D. Nutritional strategies to counteract muscle atrophy caused by disuse and to improve recovery. Nutr Res Rev. 2013;26(2):149–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Miokovic T, Armbrecht G, Gast U, Rawer R, Roth HJ, Runge M, Belavý DL. Muscle atrophy, pain, and damage in bed rest reduced by resistive (vibration) exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(8):1506–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Myklebust G, Bahr R. Return to play guidelines after anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(3):127–31.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nordlund MM, Thorstensson A. Strength training effects of whole-body vibration? Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2007;17(1):12–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nyakayiru J, Fuchs CJ, Trommelen J, Smeets JSJ, Senden JM, Gijsen AP, Verdijk LB. Blood flow restriction only increases myofibrillar protein synthesis with exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(6):1137–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ohta H, Kurosawa H, Ikeda H, Iwase Y, Satou N, Nakamura S. Low-load resistance muscular training with moderate restriction of blood flow after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74(1):62–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Paillard T, Noé F, Passelergue P, Dupui P. Electrical stimulation superimposed onto voluntary muscular contraction. Sports Med. 2005;35(11):951–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pellegrino MA, Desaphy JF, Brocca L, Pierno S, Camerino DC, Bottinelli R. Redox homeostasis, oxidative stress and disuse muscle atrophy. J Physiol. 2011;589(Pt 9):2147–60.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Phillips SM, McGlory C. CrossTalk proposal: the dominant mechanism causing disuse muscle atrophy is decreased protein synthesis. J Physiol. 2014;592(Pt 24):5341–3.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Pietrangelo T, Mancinelli R, Toniolo L, Cancellara L, Paoli A, Puglielli C, Reggiani C. Effects of local vibrations on skeletal muscle trophism in elderly people: mechanical, cellular, and molecular events. Int J Mol Med. 2009;24(4):503–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Pope ZK, Willardson JM, Schoenfeld BJ. Exercise and blood flow restriction. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(10):2914–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rechel JA, Yard EE, Comstock RD. An epidemiologic comparison of high school sports injuries sustained in practice and competition. J Athl Train. 2008;43(2):197–204.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Requena Sánchez B, Padial Puche P, González-Badillo JJ. Percutaneous electrical stimulation in strength training: an update. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(2):438–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rittweger J. Vibration as an exercise modality: how it may work, and what its potential might be. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010;108(5):877–904.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rubin C, Turner AS, Bain S, Mallinckrodt C, McLeod K. Anabolism. Low mechanical signals strengthen long bones. Nature. 2001;412(6847):603–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rudrappa SS, Wilkinson DJ, Greenhaff PL, Smith K, Idris I, Atherton PJ. Human skeletal muscle disuse atrophy: effects on muscle protein synthesis, breakdown, and insulin resistance-A qualitative review. Front Physiol. 2016;7:361.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Schoenfeld BJ. Potential mechanisms for a role of metabolic stress in hypertrophic adaptations to resistance training. Sports Med. 2013;43(3):179–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Scott BR, Loenneke JP, Slattery KM, Dascombe BJ. Exercise with blood flow restriction: an updated evidence-based approach for enhanced muscular development. Sports Med. 2015;45(3):313–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Senf SM. Skeletal muscle heat shock protein 70: diverse functions and therapeutic potential for wasting disorders. Front Physiol. 2013;4:330.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Shackelford LC, LeBlanc AD, Driscoll TB, Evans HJ, Rianon NJ, Smith SM, Lai D. Resistance exercise as a countermeasure to disuse-induced bone loss. J Appl Physiol. 2004;1985(97):119–29.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Slysz J, Stultz J, Burr JF. The efficacy of blood flow restricted exercise: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport. 2016;19(8):669–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Snyder-Mackler L, Ladin Z, Schepsis AA, Young JC. Electrical stimulation of the thigh muscles after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Effects of electrically elicited contraction of the quadriceps femoris and hamstring muscles on gait and on strength of the thigh muscles. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1991;73(7):1025–36.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Souron R, Farabet A, Féasson L, Belli A, Millet GY, Lapole T. Eight weeks of local vibration training increases dorsiflexor muscle cortical voluntary activation. J Appl Physiol. 2017;1985(122):1504–15.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Souron R, Oriol M, Millet GY, Lapole T. Intermediate muscle length and tendon vibration optimize corticospinal excitability during knee extensors local vibration. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1266.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sun KT, Leung KS, Siu PM, Qin L, Cheung WH. Differential effects of low-magnitude high-frequency vibration on reloading hind-limb soleus and gastrocnemius medialis muscles in 28-day tail-suspended rats. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2015;15(4):316–24.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Takano H, Morita T, Iida H, Asada K, Kato M, Uno K, Nakajima T. Hemodynamic and hormonal responses to a short-term low-intensity resistance exercise with the reduction of muscle blood flow. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2005;95(1):65–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Takarada Y, Takazawa H, Ishii N. Applications of vascular occlusion diminish disuse atrophy of knee extensor muscles. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(12):2035–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Tankisheva E, Bogaerts A, Boonen S, Delecluse C, Jansen P, Verschueren SM. Effects of a 6-month local vibration training on bone density, muscle strength, muscle mass, and physical performance in postmenopausal women. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(9):2613–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Taradaj J, Halski T, Kucharzewski M, Walewicz K, Smykla A, Ozon M, Pasternok M. The effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on quadriceps strength and knee function in professional soccer players: return to sport after ACL reconstruction. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:802534.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Tipton KD. Nutritional support for exercise-induced injuries. Sports Med. 2015;45:S93–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Vaquero AF, Chicharro JL, Gil L, Ruiz MP, Sánchez V, Lucía A, Gómez MA. Effects of muscle electrical stimulation on peak VO2 in cardiac transplant patients. Int J Sports Med. 1998;19(5):317–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Veldman MP, Gondin J, Place N, Maffiuletti NA. Effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation training on endurance performance. Front Physiol. 2016;7:544.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Wackerhage H, Schoenfeld BJ, Hamilton DL, Lehti M, Hulmi JJ. Stimuli and sensors that initiate skeletal muscle hypertrophy following resistance exercise. J Appl Physiol. 2019;1985(126):30–43.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Wall BT, Dirks ML, Snijders T, Senden JM, Dolmans J, van Loon LJ. Substantial skeletal muscle loss occurs during only 5 days of disuse. Acta Physiol. 2014;210(3):600–11.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Wall BT, Morton JP, van Loon LJ. Strategies to maintain skeletal muscle mass in the injured athlete: nutritional considerations and exercise mimetics. Eur J Sport Sci. 2015;15(1):53–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Wall BT, van Loon LJ. Nutritional strategies to attenuate muscle disuse atrophy. Nutr Rev. 2013;71(4):195–208.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Wernbom M, Apro W, Paulsen G, Nilsen TS, Blomstrand E, Raastad T. Acute low-load resistance exercise with and without blood flow restriction increased protein signalling and number of satellite cells in human skeletal muscle. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013;113(12):2953–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Wilson JM, Lowery RP, Joy JM, Loenneke JP, Naimo MA. Practical blood flow restriction training increases acute determinants of hypertrophy without increasing indices of muscle damage. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(11):3068–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Zange J, Mester J, Heer M, Kluge G, Liphardt AM. 20-Hz whole body vibration training fails to counteract the decrease in leg muscle volume caused by 14 days of 6 degrees head down tilt bed rest. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009;105(2):271–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Beijing Sport University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedro L. Valenzuela
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Javier S. Morales
    • 3
  • Alejandro Lucia
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Physiology Unit, Department of Systems Biology, School of MedicineUniversity of AlcaláMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Sport and HealthSpanish Agency for Health Protection in Sport (AEPSAD)MadridSpain
  3. 3.Faculty of Sport SciencesUniversidad Europea de MadridMadridSpain
  4. 4.Research Institute of the HospitalMadridSpain
  5. 5.Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Fragilidad y Envejecimiento SaludableMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations