The perceived tightness scale does not provide reliable estimates of blood flow restriction pressure

© 2020 Human Kinetics, Inc. Context: The perceived tightness scale is suggested to be an effective method for setting subocclusive pressures with practical blood flow restriction. However, the reliability of this scale is unknown and is important as the reliability will ultimately dictate the usefulness of this method. Objective: To determine the reliability of the perceived tightness scale and investigate if the reliability differs by sex. Design: Within-participant, repeated-measures. Setting: University laboratory. Participants: Twenty-four participants (12 men and 12 women) were tested over 3 days. Main Outcome Measures: Arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) and the pressure at which the participants rated a 7 out of 10 on the perceived tightness scale in the upper arm and upper leg. Results: The percentage coefficient of variation for the measurement was approximately 12%, with no effect of sex in the upper (median δ [95% credible interval]: 0.016 [-0.741, 0.752]) or lower body (median δ [95% credible interval]: 0.266 [-0.396, 0.999]). This would produce an overestimation/underestimation of ∼25% from the mean perceived pressure in the upper body and ∼20% in the lower body. Participants rated pressures above their AOP for the upper body and below for the lower body. At the group level, there were differences in participants’ ratings for their relative AOP (7 out of 10) between day 1 and days 2 and 3 for the lower body, but no differences between sexes for the upper or lower body. Conclusions: The use of the perceived tightness scale does not provide reliable estimates of relative pressures over multiple visits. This method resulted in a wide range of relative AOPs within the same individual across days. This may preclude the use of this scale to set the pressure for those implementing practical blood flow restriction in the laboratory, gym, or clinic

The Perceived Tightness Scale Does Not Provide Reliable Estimates of Blood Flow Restriction Pressure.

CONTEXT: The perceived tightness scale is suggested to be an effective method for setting subocclusive pressures with practical blood flow restriction. However, the reliability of this scale is unknown and is important as the reliability will ultimately dictate the usefulness of this method. OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability of the perceived tightness scale and investigate if the reliability differs by sex. DESIGN: Within-participant, repeated-measures. SETTING: University laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four participants (12 men and 12 women) were tested over 3 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) and the pressure at which the participants rated a 7 out of 10 on the perceived tightness scale in the upper arm and upper leg. RESULTS: The percentage coefficient of variation for the measurement was approximately 12%, with no effect of sex in the upper (median δ [95% credible interval]: 0.016 [-0.741, 0.752]) or lower body (median δ [95% credible interval]: 0.266 [-0.396, 0.999]). This would produce an overestimation/underestimation of ∼25% from the mean perceived pressure in the upper body and ∼20% in the lower body. Participants rated pressures above their AOP for the upper body and below for the lower body. At the group level, there were differences in participants\u27 ratings for their relative AOP (7 out of 10) between day 1 and days 2 and 3 for the lower body, but no differences between sexes for the upper or lower body. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the perceived tightness scale does not provide reliable estimates of relative pressures over multiple visits. This method resulted in a wide range of relative AOPs within the same individual across days. This may preclude the use of this scale to set the pressure for those implementing practical blood flow restriction in the laboratory, gym, or clinic

A practical method for assessing lip compression strengthening in healthy adults

© 2020 by the authors. There is no practical and accessible assessment method to evaluate lip muscle compression strength. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the standard method (i.e., Iowa Oral Performance Instrument) and a practical method in healthy adults. In order to achieve our research purpose, ninety-eight healthy adults (18-40 years) completed lip compression strength measurements (standard method) and lip grasping performance tests using a standard recyclable plastic water bottle (practical method). In the overall sample, the mean and standard deviation for standard method and practical method was 26.7 (7.0) kPa and 255 (119) g, respectively. For the overall sample (n = 98), there was a positive relationship between the two strength tasks [r = 0.56 (0.41, 0.68)]. When separated by sex, positive correlations were observed for men and women with no differences between the observed correlations [difference of 0.06 (-0.2646, 0.3917)]. This result indicates that those individuals who are strong in the standard task will often be strong in the practical task. Future research is needed to determine how well changes in each test track with each other in response to a lip strength training program

Assessments of facial muscle thickness by ultrasound in younger adults: Absolute and relative reliability

© 2019 by the authors. The absolute reliability (i.e., standard error of measurement and minimal difference) of a measurement is important to consider when assessing training effects. However, the absolute reliability for ultrasound measured facial muscle thickness had not been investigated. In order to examine the absolute and relative reliability of measuring facial muscles, 98 healthy, young, and middle-aged adults (18-40 years) had ultrasound measurements taken twice, separated by an average of three days. Six facial muscles were selected to determine the reliability of facial muscle thickness. The relative reliability (ICC3,1) ranged from 0.425 for the orbicularis oris (inferior) to 0.943 for the frontalis muscle. The absolute reliability (minimal difference) ranged from 0.25 mm for the orbicularis oculi to 1.82 mm for the masseter. The percentage minimal difference was 22%, 25%, 26%, 29%, 21%, and 10% for the frontalis, orbicularis oculi, orbicularis oris (superior), orbicularis oris (inferior), depressor anguli oris, and masseter, respectively. Our results indicated that the relative reliability was similar to that observed previously. The absolute reliability indicated that the measurement error associated with measuring muscle thickness of the face may be greater than that of the trunk/limb muscles. This may be related to the difficulty of accurately determining the borders of each muscle

A Practical Method for Assessing Lip Compression Strengthening in Healthy Adults

There is no practical and accessible assessment method to evaluate lip muscle compression strength. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the standard method (i.e., Iowa Oral Performance Instrument) and a practical method in healthy adults. In order to achieve our research purpose, ninety-eight healthy adults (18–40 years) completed lip compression strength measurements (standard method) and lip grasping performance tests using a standard recyclable plastic water bottle (practical method). In the overall sample, the mean and standard deviation for standard method and practical method was 26.7 (7.0) kPa and 255 (119) g, respectively. For the overall sample (n = 98), there was a positive relationship between the two strength tasks [r = 0.56 (0.41, 0.68)]. When separated by sex, positive correlations were observed for men and women with no differences between the observed correlations [difference of 0.06 (−0.2646, 0.3917)]. This result indicates that those individuals who are strong in the standard task will often be strong in the practical task. Future research is needed to determine how well changes in each test track with each other in response to a lip strength training program