THE EFFECTS OF BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION TRAINING ON BICEP
MUSCLE HYPERTROPHY AMONG YOUNG MALE ADULTS
A Thesis Presented to the
Faculty of the School of Arts and Sciences
NU Laguna
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Exercise and Sports Science Major in
Fitness and Sports Coaching
Submitted by:
Ushlee Enrique A. Basas
Elaine Jairusse R. Capellan
Yuen Magdalena William Verbruggen
March 2025
ii
APPROVAL SHEET
This thesis titled THE EFFECTS OF BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION
TRAINING ON BICEP MUSCLE HYPERTROPHY AMONG YOUNG MALE
ADULTS has been prepared and submitted by Elaine Jairusse R. Capellan, Ushlee
Enrique A. Basas, and Yuen Magdalena William Verbruggen who are hereby
recommended for Oral Examination in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Bachelor of Science in Exercise and Sports Science Major in Fitness and Sports
Coaching.
ERICK VOLTAIRE P. TABING, RND, MSApN
Research Adviser
Approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science
Exercise and Sports Science Major of Fitness and Sports Coaching by Oral
Examination Committee.
Mr. Milpert John B. Maroto, LPT, MPESS
Panel Chair
Mr. Edward Jan D. Lirio, LPT, MPES
Panel Member
Ms. Gretchie C. Gara, LPT, MSBio
Panel Member
Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF
SCIENCE IN EXERCISE AND SPORTS SCIENCE MAJOR IN FITNESS AND
SPORTS COACHING.
MR. NEILSON A. SILVA, LPT, MAEd
(Date)
Dean, School of Arts and Sciences
iii
ABSTRACT
Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) training involves the application of a device that
occludes venous, but not arterial, blood flow to muscles during exercise to promote
muscular hypertrophy using low resistance loads. BFR training has recently drawn much
attention and interest in the exercise rehabilitation and fitness field. Thirty subjects were
assigned with experimental (performed bicep lift with BFR bands) and control group
(underwent traditional resistance training). The intervention was a 12-week long training
program that measured bicep circumference; with pre and post intervention
measurements. Results showed that both groups experienced a statistically significant
increase in bicep muscle size, however, the BFR group had a higher percentage increase.
The results support the potential of BFR training as an effective alternative to traditional
resistance training for hypertrophy, especially for populations that may not tolerate high
training loads. This study adds to the emerging literature supporting BFR as a legitimate
training modality for hypertrophy while also supporting the concept of volume
management and overload regarding a properly programmed hypertrophy-based training
regimen extending its curvature in a useful manner.
Keywords: Blood Flow Restriction Training, Muscle Hypertrophy, Resistance Training,
Bicep Growth, Strength Training, Low-Load Training, Exercise Science
iv
I, Elaine Capellan, would like to thank my family and friends who have always
helped me in my life by teaching me things that are important to my growth; to my partner
whom I love so much, and has been a huge help in making this study. To the entire group
of respondents and Sir Erick Tabing, I would not be here without all of you. To that I give
you my unfaltering loyalty until the end of time. Lastly, to everyone who has helped give
me the strength to be brave and to confront my fears, thank you.
I, Ushlee Enrique A. Basas, would like to thank my family for their love and
support. To my friends who are there to help me overcome any challenges on the way. To
my teammates who believe I can be a student and an athlete at the same time. To Sir Erick
Tabing, who is always willing to help me and understand my circumstances as an athlete.
Finally, I want to thank God for listening to my prayers, for forgiving me for all of my
transgressions, and for being my source of faith and hope on this journey.
I, Yuen Magdalena William Verbruggen, would like to thank my family and friends
for always motivating me in everything that I do and pushing me to do my best. To my
partner that I am very grateful for, thank you for always being there for me to show your
unwavering love and support and help me in many ways that you can. To my groupmates
who are always considerate and appreciative with all the efforts of each one of us, to Mr.
Cadel Evance C. Hualda, for guiding me and helping me through the process of this study,
to Sir Jeremy Randell Go, for providing my educational needs, and to Sir Erick Tabing, for
always making time to help us and teach us with the best of his knowledge, thank you.
Your time, teaching, and efforts are highly appreciated. Lastly, I want to thank God for
being my support system the entire process and providing me strength and wisdom to fulfill
this study.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are grateful to everyone who participated in our study, "The Effects of Blood
Flow Restriction Training on Bicep Muscle Hypertrophy among Young Male Adults. We
are particularly appreciative to our research adviser, Mr. Erick Voltaire P. Tabing, RND,
MSc, for his helpful advice and insightful feedback along the process. Your patience, input,
and support are extremely helpful in completing this study. We also want to thank the
students who took part in our study and served their time to attend our sessions and
complete the workout. We also appreciate the panel members' thorough review and critical
input, which helped significantly improve the final content.
A special thanks to the faculty of the School of Arts and Sciences, especially those
in the Exercise and Sports Science faculty at National University Laguna, for their
assistance and providing of resources. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to
our family and friends for their continuous support and unconditional love. Your trust in
us is what motivates us to complete this work. This work is the result of this individual's
efforts, and we are grateful to everyone who contributed.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content
Page
Title Page
i
Approval Sheet
ii
Abstract
iii
Dedication
iv
Acknowledgement
v
Table of Contents
vi
List of Tables
x
List of Figures
xii
List of Acronyms
xiii
Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION
1
Background of the Study
1
Statement of the Problem
2
Hypothesis
3
Theoretical Framework
3
Conceptual Framework
5
Scopes and Limitations
7
Significance of the Study
7
Definition of Terms
10
Chapter 2 - REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
11
Overview
11
Blood Flow Restriction Training
11
vii
Muscular Hypertrophy
12
Benefits of Blood Flow Resistance Training
14
BFR Training: A Tool for Reducing Muscle Weakness and Loss
15
BFR training in clinical musculoskeletal rehabilitation
15
Bands, pressure, and Low- load BFR training
16
BFR- Training Adaptations in Strength-Trained Athletes and Team-Sport
17
Athletes
Muscle Strength and Structural Adaptations
17
Impact of Workout Intensity on Muscle Hypertrophy
18
Optimal Training Volume for Bicep Hypertrophy
18
Strength Training Methods for Bicep Hypertrophy
19
Tempo and Muscle Hypertrophy
19
Synthesis
20
Chapter 3- METHODOLOGY
21
Research Design
21
Sampling Method
22
Context and Participants
22
Research Instruments
24
Data Gathering Procedures
24
Equipment
25
Program Development
26
Program Rationale
29
Objectives of the Program
30
viii
Program Assessment
35
Program Application
35
BFR Application
36
Bicep Circumference
36
Data Analysis
37
Statistical Treatment of Data
37
Ethical Considerations
42
Chapter 4- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
44
Workout Program
44
Changes in Bicep Hypertrophy Between BFR and Conventional Groups
54
Difference between the control and experimental group on bicep
circumference
58
Adjusted Difference of Bicep Circumference based on Volume
60
Chapter5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
64
Summary
64
Conclusion
65
Recommendation
66
References
68
Appendices
74
APPENDIX A – High Performance Gym Request Letter
74
APPENDIX B – Informed Consent for Bicep Muscle Hypertrophy
78
Training Participants
APPENDIX C – Eight-week Mesocycle Training Program
80
APPENDIX D- CERTIFICATE OF STATISTICIAN
84
ix
APPENDIX E- CERTIFICATE OF GRAMMARIAN
Curriculum Vitae
85
86
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Table Title
Page
1
Average Age of Male Participants in BFR and
Conventional Training Groups
23
2
Activation routine
27
3
Warm up Routine
28
4
Cooldown
28
5
Week 1 to 3 of the adapted twelve-week mesocycle
training program
31
6
Week 4 to 6 of the adapted twelve-week mesocycle
32
training program
7
Week 7 to 9 of the adapted twelve-week mesocycle
33
training program
8
Week 10 to 12 of the adapted twelve-week mesocycle
34
training program
9
Demographic Profile of Participants
44
10
Adapted twelve-week mesocycle training program
51
week 1 to 3
11
Adapted twelve-week mesocycle training program
week 4 to 6
52
xi
12
Adapted twelve-week mesocycle training program
53
week 7 to 9
13
Adapted twelve-week mesocycle training program
54
week 10 to 12
14
Comparison of Left Bicep Circumference Changes
Between BFR and
Conventional Groups
Comparison of Right Bicep Circumference Changes
Between BFR and Conventional Groups
55
16
Comparison of Bicep Circumference Changes Between
BFR and Conventional Training Groups
59
17
Comparison of Post-Test Bicep Circumference and
Training Volume Between BFR and Control Groups
61
15
56
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
Figure Title
Page
1
SAID principle by John and Sandage (2019)
4
2
Conceptual Framework
6
3
Comparison of Bicep Circumference Changes Over Time Between
58
BFR and Control Groups
xiii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BFR - Blood-Flow Restriction
RT - Resistance Training
RIR- Reps in Reserve
RPE- Rate of Perceived Exertion
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Resistance training is a proven approach to stimulate muscular hypertrophy,
strength and endurance. Conventional resistance training (RT) usually consists of lifting
progressively heavier loads to elicit muscle adaptation. But for those recently introduced
to resistance training, people with injuries, or those with joint restrictions, this highintensity approach can be impractical. This has propelled researchers and fitness
professionals alike to investigate alternative methods, including Blood Flow Restriction
(BFR) training.
BFR training is the use of specialized bands or cuffs that partially occludes venous
return but still allows arterial flow. This technique immerses the muscle in a state of
hypoxia, which elevates metabolic stress and improves fast-twitch muscle fiber recruitment
which is an important stimulus for hypertrophy (Sieljacks et al., 2019). While BFR
training can be performed at very low intensities (20-50% one-repetition maximum) and
still produce muscle growth comparable to traditional high-load resistance exercise
(Chang et al., 2024). This is part of the reason why BFR has become a popular strategy in
rehab settings and is also used by athletes hoping to achieve hypertrophy without damaging
their joints with excessive mechanical tension. The gap in the current body of evidence to
support the usage of BFR training over traditional exercise has become apparent, and in
part, this research study aims to fill that gap. Many studies have been conducted on clinical
populations, for example post-surgery patients or older adults, meaning they have limited
applicability to active people. Additionally, the most effective training parameters for BFR
2
have not been established and therefore require investigation within rigid hypertrophy
programs (Hernández-Martín et al., 2024).
This study aims to fill these gaps by comparing effects of 3 weeks of BFR training
on hypertrophy of the bicep muscle of young male adults (18–30 years). The study seeks
to directly compare BFR to traditional training and provide evidence-based information
that exercise professionals, athletes, and rehabilitation experts can use to leverage
hypertrophic mechanisms in training to educate fitness trainers and rehabilitation
professionals on the possible use of BFR in strength and conditioning programmers.
However, while more traditional hypertrophy resistance training is still considered the gold
standard for muscle hypertrophy, BFR alternative training may provide at least
comparable results more work is needed to validate these assertions empirically. The
prospective hypertrophic potential of BFR training will be evaluated relative to traditional
training, and the feasibility of using BFR to promote accelerated bicep muscle growth with
minimal mechanical tension will also be explored.
Statement of the Problem
This study intends to find out how blood flow restriction training can affect bicep
hypertrophy. The researchers ought to find out the current preferred style of training in the
community. Also, it serves as a guide to the newly interested individuals in order to be
more knowledgeable in this area thus significantly reducing the possibility of underlying
accidents. This study aimed to determine the effects of Blood Flow Restriction training on
bicep muscle hypertrophy among young adults. This study will be conducted during S.Y.
2024-2025 at National University, Laguna.
3
Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of:
1.1. Sex
1.2. Age
2. What type of program will be applied for the bicep hypertrophy?
3. What is the change of the bicep circumference of the participants who undergo BFR
training before and after the duration of the study?
4. What is the change of the bicep circumference of the participants who did not undergo
BFR training before and after the duration of the study?
5. Is there any significant difference between the control and experimental group on
bicep circumference?
Hypothesis
H0 - Bicep muscular hypertrophy will have no significant difference before and after using
blood flow restriction (BFR) training.
H1 - Bicep muscular hypertrophy will have significant difference before and after using
blood flow restriction (BFR) training
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This study is grounded in the Specific Adaptation to Impose Demand (SAID)
principle as articulated by Johnson and Sandage (2019). The SAID principle suggests
that the body adapts specifically to the demands placed upon it. When subjected to a
particular type of stress or exercise, the physiological adaptations that occur in the body
4
are specific to that type of stress. This principle is crucial for understanding how different
training methods can lead to varying adaptations in muscle growth, strength, and
endurance. With enough use, volume can now be equated to fit the program made for the
participants based on their volume landmarks. With the proper usage of these variables,
BFR training can now be given. The idea is that your body responds to the exercise you
perform. In particular, your body adjusts to the particular exercise you perform; for
example, lifting weights increases muscular size. After that, your body will adjust to the
exercise you do. Changes can include improvements in muscle growth, speed, endurance,
and other areas. To put the SAID principle into much simpler terms, our study indicates
that if an individual wants to increase strength and muscle size, they should lift weights.
An individual's actions impact the demands they place on their body.
Figure 1.
SAID principle by Johnson and Sandage (2019)
There are three (3) adaptations that can happen to the participant, and they are
listed inside the framework. Neurological adaptations happen when loading increases
overtime, making the athlete stronger and better using motor units as their bodies become
more efficient. Morphological adaptations are those changes in the physical form of an
5
athlete's body. This can be seen through changes in the body composition by increased
muscle mass or a decrease in body fat. Lastly, bioenergetic changes refer to the internal
mechanisms of the body. This can be an increase in stroke volume as their bodies become
more efficient in using their blood and better metabolism due to higher activity; it can
also be the increase in BMR due to the increased muscle mass they have gained from
their training.
If BFR is used in the study for adaptation, the participants' bodies should undergo
significant adaptations. According to Jørgensen et. al (2023) BFR training enhances
muscle protein synthesis, increases muscle fiber activation, and induces metabolic stress,
which collectively contribute to muscle growth and strength gains even at lower training
loads. This makes BFR-RT a valuable method for individuals who may not be able to
perform high-load exercises due to various clinical musculoskeletal conditions
The outcomes are now the effect of the training variables that have been acted
upon the athlete’s body. The framework gives us a good view of how adaptations happen
overtime, and their possible effects on performance. In the context of this study, the
participants should gain adaptations through hypertrophy training, which shall be
programs for them to increase the needed variables.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
This conceptual framework illustrates the steps involved in researching the Effect
of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Bicep Muscle Hypertrophy. It begins with an
exercise program, namely the bicep hypertrophy workout plan, which will be implemented
among the participants. There will be pre- and post-test measurements of the participants'
6
mid upper arm circumference before and after the workout program is implemented to
establish a baseline and compare the results at the end of the process.
Figure 2.
Conceptual Framework
There will be sets and repetitions throughout the workout, but Machine Bicep Curl
consists of more sets than free weights because the machine requires less stability from the
body, resulting in higher muscle bias in the biceps. Because of the increased instability of
the movement, free-weight workouts need stronger muscle coordination to be performed
correctly (Haugen et al. 2023). A mid-upper arm circumference assessment will be
performed to get an initial measurement of the bicep muscle, which will be used to compare
with post-test results. After the pre-test, the participants will be divided into two groups:
experimental and control. The experimental group will use BFR bands during the program,
while the control group will undergo conventional training. Next, the workout program
will be implemented. The purpose is to see if BFR training could stimulate muscle growth
compared to standard training. After completing the training program, a post-test to assess
the changes in bicep muscle growth will be conducted.
7
Scopes and Limitations of the Study
The study will be conducted on 22 young male adults in NU Laguna to assess the
effects of blood flow restriction training on bicep muscle hypertrophy. Participants will
be evaluated based on their training history, gender, weight, and body fat percentage. For
three months, ten individuals will perform BFR training while the remaining ten will do
conventional training without BFR bands. The following equipment will be used in the
study: measuring tape, BFR bands, skinfold caliper, and sphygmomanometer. The study
only looked at biceps hypertrophy, not other muscle groups. The results were limited to
the parameters measured, which were the mid upper arm circumference, and the study
sample consists of young adults from NU Laguna.
Significance of the Study
This study intends to find out how blood flow restriction training can affect the
bicep hypertrophy. The researchers ought to find out the current preferred style of training
in the community. Also, it serves as a guide to the newly interested individuals in order to
be more knowledgeable in this area thus significantly reducing the possibility of underlying
accidents. Specifically, this study could be beneficial to the following:
Health and Fitness Promotion
This research will advance knowledge of efficient training techniques and raise
awareness of the importance of fitness and health. This study will offer important
insights that will assist individuals and fitness professionals in optimizing exercise
8
routines for better health and aesthetic outcomes by contrasting blood flow restriction
(BFR) training with conventional approaches.
Boosting the Fitness Industry in the country
This study will aid in the development of local fitness programs, as fitness is
gradually gaining popularity in this country. The results of the study can assist
organizations and fitness professionals in creating inventive and more successful training
regimens. This could stimulate the fitness sector, resulting in job creation and economic
expansion.
Contribution to Existing Body of Knowledge in the Field of Sports and Exercise
Science
This will advance the study of sports and exercise science by expanding the
understanding of training techniques and optimizing training protocols. This will also
contribute to the field of sports and exercise science. Through comparison, the research
will add depth to the understanding of how different training methods impact muscle
hypertrophy. This can refine existing knowledge about the relative effectiveness of various
training techniques.
Furthermore, the mechanisms of hypertrophy in the study can elucidate the
specific physiological mechanisms underlying muscle growth with BFR training.
Understanding these mechanisms in contrast to conventional methods advances the
scientific knowledge of how different stimuli affect muscle adaptation. Additionally,
determining the ideal BFR training parameters—such as cuff pressure, duration, and
frequency—contributes important data for improving training regimens. This will enable
academics and practitioners in the area to make more precise suggestions.
9
The conclusions of the study can help determine the optimum ways to apply BFR
training in a variety of contexts, such as general fitness, sports training, and rehabilitation.
This helps create training programs that are more evidence-based and effective.
Promotion of Value and Social Relevance
Blood flow restriction training is a training technique that promotes muscle
growth even while using relatively light weights. This study aims to explore the
effectiveness of BFR training in growing muscle size in young adults. By proving the
accessibility, affordability, and benefits of BFR training, this study could encourage
healthier lifestyles, promote training methods, and help to the development of new
rehabilitation training approaches.
10
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Hypertrophy is the process of developing and increasing muscle cells. "Hypertrophy"
refers to the enlargement of muscles caused by activity. Lifting weights is
the most common way to increase hypertrophy during exercise if you want
to tone or improve muscle definition.
Blood Flow Restriction Training is a new method that uses a cuff/tourniquet system to
maintain arterial flow while restricting venous return. According to
Wortman (2020), BFR training involves putting a cuff or tourniquet over
the proximal end of an extremity and inflating it to a predetermined
pressure (ranging from 110 to 240 mm Hg) to maintain arterial flow and
restrict venous return.
Conventional Training is a weightlifting technique that focuses on increasing muscle
size and definition. It is usually called traditional bodybuilding that
typically involves using gradual resistance exercises to overload muscles
and induce growth.
Mid upper arm circumference or MUAC, is the measurement of the upper arm. It is
located at the midpoint between the top of the shoulder and the tip of the
elbow.
11
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter presents concepts and theories about the effects of blood flow
restriction training on bicep muscle hypertrophy. The content specified herein will tackle
literature from reliable authors that will supply information and ideas about the use and
effects of blood flow restriction training on bicep muscle hypertrophy.
Blood Flow Restriction Training
Blood flow restriction (BFR) training is a method that mimics the effects of high
intensity training by combining low intensity exercise with blood flow obstruction.
Although it has been around for a while in the gym, its application in therapeutic settings
is growing. There are two types of BFR bands mainly, pneumatic and non-pneumatic. A
"pneumatic BFR band" uses air pressure within an inflatable cuff to restrict blood flow
through the limb, reducing the flow without completely cutting it off. Separately, a "nonpneumatic BFR band" applies pressure through a mechanical means rather than relying on
an air-filled bladder; these bands utilize straps, buckles, or other tightening mechanisms to
gradually reduce blood flow below the limb. Both styles of bands emulate the effects of
exercise by impeding circulation to induce muscle fatigue and stimulate muscle growth
and recovery through restricted oxygen and nutrient delivery, even with reduced exertion
levels. (Krzysztofik et al., 2019)
According to Wilson (2021) the practice of blood flow restriction (BFR) training is
becoming more and more common in weight rooms. That does not imply that it is fully
understood, though. Indeed, the confusion seems to be increasing with all the different titles
12
(occlusion training, hypoxic training, KAATSU), styles (bands, cuffs, ace bandages), and
objectives attached to this kind of training. The initial process of muscle growth is made
possible by this arrangement, which causes the muscle to enlarge. An accumulation of
metabolites like lactic acid, which have been demonstrated to directly drive muscle growth,
is another effect of blood flow restriction. Furthermore, the neurological system is
compelled to engage the largest fast-twitch muscle fibers, which have the highest potential
for growth, because to the direct fatigue that is imposed on the muscles.
The BFR training includes various parameters that have a major impact on training
adaptations and must be carefully considered. These factors include resistance load,
volume, cuff pressure, cuff width, duration of BFR, and BFR type (continuous or
intermittent). Among these characteristics, cuff pressure is regarded as a significant
determinant for attaining effective training adaptations while maintaining safety. Studies
have found that acute physiological responses and long-term physiological adaptations are
pressure dependent. Applying the same absolute pressure to different individuals may lead
to inconsistent BFR levels. Ensuring that all participants in a group receive a similar BFR
stimulus is essential for consistency in research (Wang et al., 2022b). In clinical practice,
it is crucial to avoid excessively high pressures due to potential safety concerns (Patterson
et al., 2019).
Muscular Hypertrophy
Muscle cell development and increase is known as hypertrophy. The term
"hypertrophy" describes the enlargement of muscles brought on by exercise. Lifting
weights is the most popular method of increasing hypertrophy during exercise if your goal
is to tone or improve muscular definition. The term "muscular hypertrophy" describes the
13
growth of muscle cells (Hough et al., 2019). You can lift a heavy weight for fewer
repetitions (reps) when weightlifting, or you can lift a low weight for numerous reps. How
you lift will dictate how your muscles develop and evolve. For instance, using a lesser
weight can help you build muscle tone, but increasing the number of repetitions needed to
increase muscle fiber efficiency will be necessary. You won't see much muscle definition
with this type of training unless you exhaust yourself doing a lot of repetitions. However,
lifting large weights is a good method of encouraging muscle fiber growth and definition.
If time is of the essence, this method of exercising is also more effective.
When muscle protein synthesis surpasses muscle protein breakdown and produces
a positive net protein balance over time, muscular hypertrophy is the outcome. Possible
when using both RT and protein consumption, it increases the synthesis of muscle proteins
and reduces their breakdown. From a nutritional perspective, protein consumption
combined with RT is a powerful inducer of muscle protein synthesis. To optimize muscle
adaptations, RT's variables such as effort level and intensity, exercise sequence, repetitions
and sets completed, movement speed, length of rest intervals between sets and exercises,
and training status have been thoroughly studied and debated. An effort's volume and
intensity are fundamental elements that directly affect how muscles adapt (Krzysztofik et
al., 2019). Numerous studies have shown that when fatigue sets in, training at low loads
produces hypertrophy that is comparable to training at moderate and high loads.
Additionally, it is not always required to approach fatigue to achieve notable hypertrophy
gains—especially when high-load training is considered. Research suggests that the
majority of training sets with ~3–4 repetitions in reserve (with moderate to high-loads)
result in considerable muscle hypertrophy. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that the
14
volume of resistance training (RT), which is the total number of repetitions plus the loads
applied for a particular exercise, is the primary factor in adaptation for muscle hypertrophy.
Additionally, it is established that maximizing muscle hypertrophy requires the
manipulation of training volume, intensity of effort, and range of motion (Androulakis et
al. 2023).
Benefits of Blood Flow Resistance Training
An elastic band, or tourniquet, is wrapped around your arm or thigh to stop blood
flow and deceive your body into believing that you are exerting more effort than you are.
Adding BFR training to your fitness regimen can be quite beneficial, particularly if you're
having an undergoing surgery or have osteoporosis and are unable to lift enough weight to
encourage muscle growth (Nascimento, 2022). The notion that "no pain, no gain" which is
applicable to muscular hypertrophy, is not too dissimilar from what science has to say about
the process. Strength training causes an alteration in the internal milieu of the muscles,
which triggers hypertrophy. Blood still enters your muscles through your arteries even
when you exercise for BFR. However, wearing the band prevents it from vanishing through
your veins. This disruption of regular blood flow makes it possible for your muscles to get
fatigued, swollen, and oxygen-depleted faster.
Applying an external pressure, usually with a tourniquet cuff, on the closest part of
the upper and/or lower limbs is the technique of BFR in the muscle utilizing a pneumatic
tourniquet device. When the cuff is inflated, the vasculature beneath it gradually
compresses mechanically. This partially restricts arterial blood flow to structures farther
away from the cuff, but it has a greater negative impact on venous outflow from beneath
15
it; which is thought to also obstruct venous return. A lack of oxygen (hypoxia) in the muscle
tissue is caused by compression of the capillaries near the skeletal muscle (Patterson et al.,
2019). Moreover, blood pools in the occluded limbs' capillaries due to the reduction in
venous blood flow, which is frequently shown as erythema. The amount of pressure exerted
may have an impact on the degree of blood pooling. Furthermore, there is an increase in
intramuscular pressure behind the cuff during muscular contractions conducted in BFR
circumstances, which further disrupts blood flow.
BFR Training: A Tool for Reducing Muscle Weakness and Loss
According to Lorenz et al. (2021) muscle weakness and loss are common outcomes
of musculoskeletal injury. Blood flow restriction training has the potential to reduce
weakness and muscle loss without overloading recovering tissues. It appears to be an
effective and safe method for therapeutic exercise in sports medicine settings. This
technique requires careful evaluation of variety of factors, thus the objective of this paper
is to provide insights into proposed mechanisms of effectiveness, safety concerns,
application guidelines and clinical recommendation for BFR training after musculoskeletal
injury. Whereas high-load training produces the greatest increases in strength and muscle
hypertrophy, BFR training appears to be the viable option for connecting earlier phases of
rehabilitation when the patient may not tolerate higher loads and later stages that are
consistent with a return to sport.
BFR training in clinical musculoskeletal rehabilitation
According to Jorgensen et al. (2023), a review with meta-analysis found that low
load resistance training with BFR to the exercising limb and high load resistance training
are equally effective for achieving improvements in skeletal muscle mass in the healthy
16
population. As a result, blood flow restriction training has been proposed as a potential
exercise approach in clinical populations where either fragile post-surgical condition or
injury may limit patients' ability to exercise at greater muscle loading intensities.
Immobilization causes muscle mass and strength loss, which is a well-known problem in
clinical populations. According to Balchandran et al. (2022), muscle mass and strength
have been related to decreases in physical function, which may result in chronically lower
physical function. Recovering strength and muscle mass after a prolonged period of bed
rest is difficult, and as a result, muscle strength deficiencies persist despite post-injury
therapy. As a result, it is considered extremely important for patients to participate in
exercise-based activities that promote skeletal muscle mass and mechanical functions in
order to counteract the negative impact of disease burden and disuse on muscle
morphology, maximal muscle strength, and function performance (Currier et al. 2019).
Bands, pressure, and Low- load BFR training
In the study by Rockhill et al. (2020), the bands are pneumatic or operated by air
under pressure, and when inflated, they use a "barrel" system that allows for more elasticity
and non-uniform circumferential pressure, reducing the risk of arterial blockage such as
ischemia-perfusion injury or rhabdomyolysis. The researchers also state that during BFR
training, a hypoxic environment or low oxygen levels in the muscle cause the buildup of
metabolites, which are waste products created by the muscles during exercise and could
potentially stimulate muscle growth. Metabolites such as lactate, a hormone that aids
muscle growth, stimulates enhanced growth hormone and rapid twitch fiber recruitment,
allowing for hypertrophy and strength development even at lower weights. Low-load BFR
17
training can increase muscle growth and exercise tolerance while lowering the risk of injury
associated with high-load resistance training.
BFR- Training Adaptations in Strength-Trained Athletes and Team-Sport Athletes
As stated by Pignanelli et al. (2021), most studies focused on the efficacy of BFR
training in improving muscle strength and muscle growth among untrained individuals.
Other studies shows that BFR resistance exercise has influence on the adaptations of
trained individuals. Haugen et al. (2023) conducted a 6.5-week strength program. They
added two 1-week blocks consisting of front squats at either 1) moderate loads (~30% 1repetition maximum) with continuous BFR or 2) conventional high loads (~60%-85% 1RM) for national-level power lifters. Regardless of advanced training condition, 10
sessions of BFR increase quadriceps muscle size by 3%-8%, muscle fiber by 12%, and the
number of myonuclei by 18%, supporting the increased size of muscle fibers that can
promote muscular growth and capillary-to-muscle fiber connections (12%) are found in
type-I muscle fibers, which connect to muscle cells and improve blood flow, delivering
oxygen and nutrients. There are no changes in these variables in the conventional training
group.
Muscle Strength and Structural Adaptations
Most strength and conditioning programs aim to assist athletes enhance their force
producing capability in order to increase power output. Indeed, enhancing an athlete's
muscle strength can affect submaximal or moderate intensity exercise, as well as the
capacity for explosive movements. A meta-analysis by Grønfeldt et al. (2020) found that
low-load BFR-resistance training improves muscle strength as much as high-load
resistance training in untrained and recreationally active individuals.
18
At the microscopic level, myofibrillar protein synthesis, which is a way to make
our muscles bigger and stronger, increased by 10% after a single session of BFR-resistance
exercise compared with a worked-matched control individual (Nyakayiru et al. 2019), and
with training, myofibrillar protein synthesis increased comparably between low-load BFR
and high-load resistance training in exercise naive individuals (Sieljacks et al. 2019).When
low-load exercise is performed until volitional fatigue, with or without BFR, muscle size
increases by 5% to 12% in both exercise naive and resistance trained individuals
(Pignanelli et al. 2020). Currently, no research has explored how training state affects the
hypertrophic response to BFR exercise. Nonetheless, based on current information, BFR
training requires less effort at similar external intensities/loads to elicit a significant
hypertrophic training response, which is critical for maximizing muscle mass development
during certain training phases.
Impact of Workout Intensity on Muscle Hypertrophy
According to Kassiano et al. (2025), which studied the muscle development and
strength adaptation by performing unilateral and bilateral resistance training, planned
progression in weight training can result into a significant muscle hypertrophy. Currier et
al. (2022) contrasted the idea and discovered that higher load and multiple set training were
great for strength development and different training prescriptions improves muscle
hypertrophy. This shows that various methods can be effective to induce muscle
hypertrophy.
Optimal Training Volume for Bicep Hypertrophy
Hoseinpour et al. (2025) discovered that performing 20-30 sets per muscle group
each week yielded the best results for muscle growth. Participants who followed this
19
regimen experienced significant increases in both muscle size and strength over six weeks.
On the other hand, Robinson et al. (2024) found that training to failure was not necessary
for muscle growth. Instead, they observed that moderate effort combined with sufficient
volume can also lead to substantial hypertrophy.
Strength Training Methods for Bicep Hypertrophy
According to Currier et al. (2022) study, which aimed to determine how different
combinations of resistance training factors like load, strength, and frequency can affect
muscle strength and hypertrophy. Krzysztofik et al. (2019) did another study and found
that low-load resistance training under BFR increased cross-sectional area, even before the
lifters got tired of working out.
Tempo and Muscle Hypertrophy
According to Zajac et al. (2021), unintentionally slow tempo can occur during
resistance training when heavy weight or tiredness shows up as a slower movement. An
intended slow tempo can be employed when the load is light enough to regulate and fatigue
does not interfere with an individual's control over the velocity of the action. Wilk et al.
(2019) reported contrasting ideas, that faster tempos may be more important for neural
development and strength movements, whilst slower tempos extend time under tension,
causing hypertrophy. This means that there is a knowledge gap about the best tempo for
maximal hypertrophy, and more research is needed to establish the effects of various
tempos on muscle growth and strength development.
20
Synthesis
To recapitulate, all these concepts are examined and support this study. The notions
of low-load blood flow restriction training with bicep muscular hypertrophy and traditional
training on bicep muscle hypertrophy have partially similar theories, and researchers must
determine which is more effective for developing bicep muscle in young male adults.
Additionally, how can BFR training be an effective approach to bicep muscle hypertrophy
with its high cost and limited accessibility restricting its use in clinical and practical
applications? To conclude, the concepts included are viable and can be used to increase
bicep muscle circumference. The objective of the study is to understand the effects of BFR
Training on bicep muscle hypertrophy and assess the average size difference after the
experiment.
21
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter includes information regarding the research design used for the study,
the sample and sampling design, the context and participants that were included, the
research instruments that were used, the data gathering procedure, data analysis, and ethical
considerations.
Research Design
This study used a quantitative experimental method due to the amount of numerical
data that was gathered from the bicep muscular circumference of the respondents from pretest and post-test using BFR training and conventional training between two groups. This
study was also experimental in nature due to the processes and outcomes the respondents
went through to achieve the results that were gathered from the intervention. The study
also aimed to explore the diversity of muscular hypertrophy, specifically bicep muscular
hypertrophy; hence, the use of standard measurements and equipment was utilized to
acquire the best results relevant in the study. The researchers aimed to determine the
potential impact of BFR training on bicep muscular hypertrophy in terms of the important
parameters used in the training, which were cuff pressure, duration, frequency, and lastly,
muscle growth. This method was intended to determine how BFR training was effective
for bicep muscular hypertrophy using the parameters specified that served as a guide.
22
Sampling method
The researchers used purposive sampling method to identify young male
participants among the 22 individuals divided into two groups: 12 for the experimental
group going through BFR training and 10 for the control group doing conventional training.
The study included participants depending on their weight, ranging from 60 kg to 90 kg.
According to a study by Helms et al. (2023), male trained individuals hovered their
bodyweight as low as 77 kilograms to as high as 85.9 kilograms. This paper gave a
hypothesis of what body weight range could be used for this study. To gain more muscular
mass and strength, many people engaged in resistance training (RT). It was encouraged to
have energy surpluses to sustain these improvements, but if they were excessively high,
they may result in unneeded fat growth. Participants were separated into two groups
depending on weight: control and experimental. Using the purposive sampling method,
researchers selected individuals who they believed would provide the most important data
for their research objectives.
Context and Participants
The study participants were individuals between the ages of 18 and 30 with no
history of coagulation disorders, including deep vein thrombosis. Exclusion criteria for this
study included pregnancy, smoking, lymphoedema, cardiovascular disease, chronic
degenerative diseases, a history of cancer, recent surgery in the lower limbs within the past
12 months, or medication use affecting blood flow regulation. They primarily came from
NU Laguna. Respondents also had less than a year of experience in weightlifting or
bodybuilding. There was a total of 22 respondents, with 10 in the control group and 12 in
23
the experimental group. Respondents who had experience with resistance/strength
exercises were thoroughly instructed about the study. Before the study began, students
were given the physical activity readiness questionnaire and any other paperwork that had
to be completed in order for the researchers to collect the necessary data from all
participants. Studies using small sample sizes are common in BFR research due to the
precision of measurements and focus on targeted interventions. For example, in trials
examining BFR's effect on muscle strength and hypertrophy. This was especially true when
the emphasis was on obtaining detailed physiological outcomes or when practical
constraints such as time and resources limited larger cohorts. Such studies successfully
showed significant hypertrophic responses with BFR, suggesting that a smaller but wellcontrolled participant pool could still yield meaningful and generalizable results when
appropriately designed (Chen et al., 2024). Previous reviews and systematic analyses have
found that even with limited sample sizes, BFR training can deliver outcomes comparable
to high-load resistance training for hypertrophy. This suggests that smaller-scale studies
remain a valid approach to exploring BFR's targeted effects on specific muscle groups
(Hernández-Martín et al., 2024).
Table 1.
Average Age of Male Participants in BFR and Conventional Training Groups
sex
Average age
BFR group
Male= 12
19 ± 0.82
Conventional group
Male=10
18.6 ± 0.92
24
Research Instruments
The BFR bands and an approach for measuring bicep muscle served as the primary
study instruments. The researchers used a quantitative experimental design to assess the
effect of BFR training on bicep muscle hypertrophy. The procedure specified that the
participants' biceps were measured at the midpoint of the upper arm with a measuring tape.
Measurements were gathered before and after the BFR training. To assure the precision
and reliability of the BFR bands that were used, we employed a 7 out of 10 perceived
tightness rating. Centner et al. (2018) proposed this method of applying pressure based on
the individual's impression of tightness. The authors discovered that no subjects were
experiencing vascular blockage when the restriction was applied.
Data Gathering Procedure
The researchers submitted a preliminary letter to the Inspire Sports Academy Office
requesting permission for the researchers and participants to have access to the
Multipurpose Gym and gym equipment for the study. To select participants, the researchers
published information about the study on social media to see if anyone was interested in
participating. The researchers also asked participants around NU Laguna. After gathering
participants, the researchers used a PARQ to determine whether the participants should
consult with a medical professional, check their health status to ensure their safety, and to
identify any potential health risks before performing the exercise. Then the researchers
created a bicep training program for the participants. The researchers conducted a study
using a 12-week bicep hypertrophy program. It consisted of various exercises for the bicep
muscle. An expert in sports science validated the program's safety and effectiveness. They
25
also conducted a mid-upper arm assessment, in which the researchers measured the
participant's mid upper arm circumference. Using the participants' biceps circumference as
a baseline for this study. The data collected in the study was based on the participants'
middle upper arm circumference. From there, the researchers compared the participant's
bicep circumferences before and after the study to see the results. Following the pre-test,
participants were separated into two groups: experimental and control. The experimental
group used BFR bands throughout the program, while the control group received
conventional bicep training. After completing the training program, the researchers
conducted a post-test evaluation in which they measured each participant's biceps mid
upper arm circumference to assess increases in bicep muscle growth.
Equipment
In accordance with the standard measurements and equipment to be used, the
researchers used blood flow restriction bands purchased from a well-known fitness brand
called BFR BANDS, which are known for their equipment that is highly durable and
effective in restricting blood flow. The wearable BFR training device had good validity
(ICC = 0.85, mean difference = 4.1 ± 13.8 mmHg [95% CI: −23.0 to 31.2]), excellent interrater reliability (ICC = 0.97, mean difference = −1.4 ± 6.7 mmHg [95% CI: −14.4 to 11.7]),
and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.94, mean difference = 0.6 ± 8.6 mmHg [95%
CI: −16.3 to 17.5]) for assessing AOP. These findings were consistent across male and
female groupings (Zhang et al. 2024).
26
BFR tightness scale
The researchers used a perceived tightness grading of 7 out of 10 to ensure the
precision and reliability of the BFR bands they used. Various restrictive pressures had been
used during blood flow restriction exercise, including those depending on brachial systolic
blood pressure, limb size, and resting arterial occlusion pressure. Among these strategies,
adjusting the pressure relative to the arterial occlusion pressure was preferred since it
considered both the cuff and the limb size. This guaranteed that the pressure applied
restricted but did not completely block artery inflow, a critical concern for participant
safety. Although getting a percentage of resting arterial occlusion pressure was useful for
standardizing between individuals, not all practitioners could access this equipment.
Wilson et al. (2013) proposed a pressure application method for elastic knee wraps
depending on the individual's perceived tightness. The authors found that restricting
individuals to an experienced tightness of 7 out of 10 did not result in arterial blockage.
Program Development
The effects of blood flow restriction training on bicep muscle hypertrophy in young
male adults were studied implementing a twelve-week bicep workout program. This study
included two groups: a BFR group and a conventional group. The program was designed
with increasing overload. Weeks 1-3 concentrated on foundational movements, including
workouts such as one-arm bicep curls, barbell bicep curls, and closed grip barbell bicep
curls performed with 8-12 repetitions for 2-3 sets with a 2–3-minute rest break.
Weeks 4-6 of the program included workouts that focused on peak contraction and
isolation. This phase consisted of 8-12 repetitions of concentration curls, cable bicep curls,
27
seated bicep curls, and barbell preacher curls, with sets raised to 3-4 sets and rest intervals
extended to 3-4 minutes due to the increased intensity. In this six-week training program,
blood flow restriction bands were used to apply pressure and enhance hypertrophic
response. The conventional group performed the same workout routine, but without the use
of BFR bands. Bicep circumference measurements were performed at the beginning,
weekly, and end of the training program to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of the
training methods. This program was developed to use blood flow restriction in traditional
resistance training to enhance hypertrophic response and determine whether it was more
efficient than the usual training method.
This table shows the activation routine which begins with shoulder rotations 30
seconds forwards and backwards followed by resistance band curls for 2 sets of 15-20 reps
and standing bicep stretch for 30-60 second hold. This is intended to activate the muscles
for the activity.
Table 2.
Activation routine
Exercises
Shoulder rotations
Resistance band curls
Standing bicep stretch
Time
30 seconds forward, 30 seconds backward
2 sets of 15-20 reps
30-60 second hold
This table shows the warm-up routine, which begins with a 5-minute treadmill run
and is followed by three dynamic stretches of 30 seconds each, performed in each direction.
This is intended to increase the heart rate and prepare the muscles for the activity.
28
Table 3.
Warm up Routine
EXERCISES
Treadmill run
Arm circle R/L
Cross-body shoulder stretch
Arm swing front to back
TIME
5 min
30 sec
30 sec
30 sec
This table shows the cooldown routine, which begins with a 5-minute treadmill
exercise at a slow pace to bring the heart rate back down. Followed by three static stretches,
each lasting 30 seconds to enhance flexibility and reduce muscle pain. This is intended to
lower the heart rate and help in recovery from the workout.
Table 4.
Cooldown
EXERCISES
Treadmill
Static Stretching
Bicep stretch L/R
Shoulder stretch
TIME
5 min
5 min
30 sec
30 sec
Table 5 shows weeks 1-3 of the bicep-focused workout program. It includes four
exercises which are the one arm bicep curl, barbell curl, preacher curl and closed grip
barbell curl. Load is set at 40% of with 15-20 repetitions and 2-3 sets and an RPE of 3-7.
Tempo is 3:0:1 and the rest interval is 2-3 minutes. The rationale for each exercise is to
build bicep strength and increase size while maintaining proper form and minimizing injury
risk.
Table 6 shows weeks 4-6 of the bicep-focused workout program. It includes four
exercises which are the concentration curl, cable bicep curl, seated bicep curl, and barbell
29
preacher curl. Load is set at 60% of with 12-15 repetitions and 3-4 sets and an RPE of 4-8.
Tempo is 3:0:1 and the rest interval is 2-3 minutes. The rationale for each exercise is to
isolate and intensify bicep activation promoting muscle growth and strength.
Table 7 shows weeks 7-9 of the bicep-focused workout program. It includes four
exercises which are the hammer curls, reverse curls, Zottman curls, and Bayesian curls.
Load is set at 70% of with 10-12 repetitions and 3-4 sets and an RPE of 7-9. Tempo is 3:0:1
and the rest interval is 3 minutes. The rationale for each exercise is to improve arm strength
and muscle mass that targets the brachialis and brachioradialis muscle while also working
the biceps and forearms for a upper body workout.
Table 8 shows weeks 10-12 of the bicep-focused workout program. It includes four
exercises which are the cross-body curls, incline curls, spider curls, and crucifix curls. Load
is set at 75% of with 10-12 repetitions and 3-4 sets and an RPE of 8-10. Tempo is 3:0:1
and the rest interval is 3-4 minutes. The rationale for each exercise is to challenge the bicep
to do different angles, improving muscle growth, strength and stability.
Program Rationale
The program starts with an RPE of 3-7 to determine individual effort and volume
tolerance. Participants are young male adults; thus, initial progression assumptions are
established with caution. The repetition range is intended for hypertrophy (10-20
repetitions) to establish a foundation of muscular endurance and encourage muscle growth
while reducing the danger of overtraining and muscle pain. Progressions will be
implemented in repetitions, sets, volume, or load, with a focus on perfect form and gradual
development. When a participant hits the peak of their prior reps with proper technique,
the load will be increased. Set progressions are based on positive adaptation; however, if a
30
participant exhibits poor recovery, sets will be lowered. Sets will only be raised if the target
muscle group is not in pain or fatigued prior to the next session. This personalized approach
ensures that young adults who are just starting out in fitness is safe and have productive
progress.
Objectives of the Program
This 12-week bicep workout program wanted to achieve considerable bicep muscle
growth. The BFR group and the traditional group both followed the same workout routine.
The BFR group performed the exercises with bands attached to their biceps. Its purpose
was to determine whether BFR bands could stimulate muscular hypertrophy more
effectively than usual resistance training. Both groups performed the same repetitions and
sets, but the volume increased if the participants could complete the maximum repetitions
with proper form. The program also improved muscle endurance. The primary goal was to
improve muscle growth and determine what approach was most effective in increasing
bicep muscle hypertrophy.
31
Table 5.
Week 1 to 3 of the adapted twelve-week mesocycle training program
WEEK 1-3
Name of
Exercise
One Arm
bicep Curl
Reps Sets
Rest
Interval
2-3
minutes
Rationale
15
3
Barbell bicep
Curl
15
3
2-3
minutes
Preacher Curl
20
2
2-3
minutes
The Preacher curl is an exercise that isolates the biceps brachii. This should serve as the
main isolation exercise for the biceps as this locks the elbows on a fixed position.
Closed grip
barbell bicep
curl
15
2
2-3
minutes
Close-grip bicep curls target the inner head of the biceps, emphasizing peak development
and total arm thickness, resulting in a more defined and muscular body.
The One arm bicep curl is an exercise that biases the biceps brachii muscle. This is done
seated as standing variation uses more core, leading to more margin of error. Incorporating
this exercise gives the respondents a unilateral basis for the program.
The Barbell bicep curl is an exercise that biases the biceps brachii but uses more brachialis.
The respondents will use the straight bar as this gives the wrist a more supinated position,
giving the biceps more peak contraction. This exercise serves as a foundational basis for
the program as this is also a compound exercise
32
Table 6.
Adapted twelve-week mesocycle training program week 4 to 6
WEEK 4-6
Name of
Exercise
Concentration
curl
Reps Sets
Rationale
10
4
10
4
3-4
minutes
Compared to typical free-weight curls, cable bicep curls provide a better stimulus for
muscle growth and strength development by maintaining continuous tension throughout
the whole range of action.
12
3
3-4
minutes
Seated bicep curls isolate the biceps by reducing motion and allowing for a more focused
contraction, resulting in higher muscle activation and a stronger mind-muscle
connection.
10
3
3-4
minutes
Barbell preacher curls are a targeted and intensive isolation exercise for the biceps that
eliminates momentum while optimizing muscle activation, resulting in considerable
strength and growth increases.
Cable bicep
curl
Seated bicep
curl
Barbell
preacher curl
Rest
Interval
3-4
minutes
Concentration curls isolate the biceps, pushing them to work harder, resulting in
enhanced muscular growth and strength, especially in the inner head.
33
Table 7.
Adapted twelve-week mesocycle training program week 7 to 9
WEEK 7-9
Name of
Exercise
Reps Sets
Rest
Interval
Hammer
curls
10
4
3 minutes
Reverse
curls
10
4
3 minutes
Zottman
curls
12
3
3 minutes
Bayesian
curl
10
3
3 minutes
Rationale
Hammer curls are an efficient exercise for improving arm strength and muscle mass,
specifically targeting the brachialis and brachioradialis muscles, while also working the
biceps and forearms for a well-rounded upper body workout.
Reverse curl is an effective exercise for targeting the brachialis and brachioradialis muscles,
leading to forearm strength and hypertrophy while also working the biceps and core
stabilizers for a total upper body workout.
Zottman curls are a flexible exercise that targets the biceps and forearms, increasing
muscular growth and strength, while also engaging the core and shoulder stabilizers for a
full upper-body workout. .
Bayesian bicep curls have a distinct angle and resistance curve, giving a continual challenge
to the biceps, resulting in greater muscular activation, strength, and size development.
34
Table 8.
Adapted twelve-week mesocycle training program week 10 to 12
WEEK 10-12
Name of
Exercise
Cross body
curls
Reps
Sets
Rest Interval
Rationale
10
4
3-4 minutes
Incline curls
10
4
3-4 minutes
Spider curls
12
3
3-4 minutes
Crucifix curl
10
3
3-4 minutes
Cross body curls are a difficult workout for the biceps because they are
performed from an unconventional angle that improves balance and muscle
growth.
Incline curls provide a unique angle for targeting the biceps, allowing for a
deeper stretch and contraction, which results in improved muscular activation
and growth.
Spider curls are an intense isolation exercise for the biceps that eliminates
momentum while optimizing muscle engagement, resulting in considerable
strength and growth improvements.
Crucifix curls are a unique challenge for the biceps, controlling them from an
unusual angle, developing balanced muscle development and improving
shoulder stability.
35
Program Assessment
It was shown that BFR training could induce hypertrophy in trained
individuals. It could be assumed that using BFR for arms could help increase
muscle size of the biceps and triceps even in individuals who had been training for
several years (Dvorak, 2024). BFR could be added into an athlete's regular training
regimen to help them build a well-rounded physique or strengthen their arms.
Although BFR training was beneficial when done alone, its effects might be
enhanced when combined with another resistance training regimen - which was
done given the program set in this study. Compared to standard high-rep training,
BFR training recruited more muscle fibers. This implied that a significant amount
of muscle growth with each set could be encouraged (Duquette & Walker-Ng,
2024). The program was validated by an expert.
Program Application
BFR, for instance, can be applied to bicep curls. To restrict blood flow to
the working muscle (the bicep) during this exercise, a cuff would be placed and
tightened around the proximal portion of the arm, which is closest to the body. This
allows one to workout with fewer weights and still reap the same benefits of
strength and hypertrophy as training with greater loads (Loenneke, 2022). Having
them too loose can be preferable to having them too tight. When beginning BFR
training, one should err on the side of caution. If skin gets red, that means that the
bands are tight enough. One's hands and forearms' vascularity will become more
apparent, and pulse can still be detected in the wrist (Dvorak, 2024).
36
BFR Application
BFR allows individuals to experience hypertrophy (muscle growth) with
significantly lighter weights, typically 20-30% of one-repetition max (1RM),
compared to the traditional recommendation of 70-85% 1RM. The restricted blood
flow creates a hypoxic (low oxygen) environment in the muscle, stimulating
metabolic stress and muscle fiber recruitment similar to heavy resistance training.
BFR bears a significant part and a great application to traditional training due to its
capability to increase hypertrophic stimulus in lighter resistances. The current
program adds a BFR routine alongside the participants’ own programs.
Bicep Circumference
The researchers measured each participant's mid-upper arm circumference.
For gathering measurements, the researchers used a measuring tape. The
participant's arm was bare to avoid disrupting the measurement. Participants were
relaxed and comfortable when measuring their mid-upper arm circumference. The
researchers then identified and positioned the measuring tape halfway between the
acromion and olecranon process. The researchers measured the mid-upper arm in
centimeters for the pre-test, as it served as the basis, and the post-test after the
workout program was implemented to measure the results.
37
Data Analysis
Along with the nature of the study, the researchers used a quantitativeexperimental data analysis. To assess the effects of blood flow restriction training
on bicep muscle hypertrophy in young male adults, the T-test was used to compare
before and after measurements of the mid-upper arm. This test is most appropriate
for assessing two groups. The impact of blood flow restriction training (BFR) was
assessed using ANCOVA, which accounted for any confounding variables such as
baseline muscle size with covariate such as volume of training. Accounting for
these characteristics allows ANCOVA to provide a more precise assessment of the
individual effect of BFR Training on bicep hypertrophy, resulting in strengthening
the study's internal validity and increasing the findings' generalizability. The
information gathered was evaluated using ANCOVA to evaluate the post-training
results and determine if there was a significant difference in bicep muscle
circumference between pre- and post-training measurements.
Statistical Treatment of Data
The participants of this study are young male adults that are aged above 18
years old. The groups were split into two: BFR group and Conventional group. The
participants should have at least 1 year experience in lifting weights. The study
conducted had a sample size of 22; (BFR group =12, Conventional group= 10). The
BFR group had an average age of 19 ± 0.82 years old and on the other hand, the
convention group had an average age of 18.6 ± 0.92 years old.
38
Paired T-test
The left and right bicep circumferences of the BFR and conventional groups
were compared before and after using a paired t-test. The paired t-test was used to
compare the changes in bicep circumference from pre-test to post-test in both the
control and experimental groups. The bicep circumference was measured in
centimeters both before and after the intervention. This statistical method was used
to see if blood flow restriction exercise resulted in a significant increase in bicep
muscle growth.
ANCOVA
This statistical tool was used to check possible difference on the
confounding factors of the post-test given that the pre-test measurements were
adjusted. The ANCOVA was conducted to determine if there was a significant
difference in post-test bicep circumference measurements between the two groups
after adjusting for pre-test measurements. This statistical strategy allowed the
researcher to look at group differences in the dependent variable after they have
adjusted for the covariate.
Independent variables (pre-test)
The Independent variable/s on the pre-test are the conventional group and
the experimental group (BFR). Both the conventional group and experimental
group have been given the same program. Moreover, another independent variable
39
is the tightness of the band which has perceived tightness of 7 out of 10. These
independent variables are the main components of the study to gather data.
Dependent variables (post-test)
The dependent variable/s on the post-test are the results from the conducted
program both from the conventional and experimental group which would be the
right MUAC bicep circumference and the left MUAC bicep circumference. In
addition, the intensity is slightly reduced in the BFR group as its own dependent
variable for safety standards.
Control group (conventional group)
The control group in this study is the conventional group with participants
who performed a workout program without any interventions. This group did the
same workout program as the experimental group to ensure that the volume of the
exercise is equal across both groups. The purpose of the conventional group was to
be the baseline of comparison allowing the researchers to compare the effects of
blood flow restriction training in the experimental group. By being consistent on
the workout program, the study aimed to isolate the impact of BFR training on
muscle growth and gains.
Experimental group (BFR group)
The experimental group in this study is the BFR group with participants
who did the same workout program as above with added blood flow restriction.
This approach applies a BFR bands with a perceived tightness scale of 7 out of 10
40
to bicep muscle during workout is intended to limit blood flow and stimulate muscle
growth and gains. The BFR group followed the same workout routine as the control
group to ensure that the volume of exercise was equal. The aim was to determine
whether BFR training was more successful than traditional training in terms of
muscle growth and strength.
Confounding variables (volume)
To control the variable, both the conventional and experimental groups
completed the same workout program. Participants performed the same number of
repetitions and sets for each exercise. The weight used in the exercise increased if
the participants could complete the maximum number of repetitions while
maintaining proper form. The volume was equal in both groups. Because the
volume was equal in both groups, there was less bias toward muscular growth. By
standardizing the exercise volume, the researchers aimed to isolate the independent
variable, which was the experimental group's blood flow restriction.
To evaluate the data, two (2) statistical procedures were used, namely, the
Paired T-Test and ANCOVA to compare the pre-test and post-test bicep
circumference measures and to assess the difference in bicep muscle hypertrophy
between the BFR and control group. The Paired t-test was used to compare the
means of two samples such as the bicep circumference pre-test and post-test of both
groups. The ANCOVA was used to compare the differences in bicep muscle
hypertrophy between the two groups while accounting for baseline measures.
ANCOVA was used to determine if there was a statistically significant difference
41
between the two groups. This statistical strategy allowed you to look at group
differences in the dependent variable after you've adjusted for the covariate. These
multiple statistical treatments were critical to the outcomes, and they had proven
accurate and reliable.
The Paired t-test was utilized in this study to compare the pre-test and posttest bicep circumference measurements within the same participants. This statistical
method was appropriate as it accounted for the dependence of observations; each
participant’s measurements before and after training were inherently related. The
assumptions of the paired t-test included that the differences between the paired
observations were normally distributed and that the pairs were randomly and
independently selected. Normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, which
indicated whether the differences were normally distributed (p > 0.05). Results
indicated that the study had normally distributed data (p<0.06). The paired t-test
was conducted to analyze the changes in bicep circumference from pre-test to posttest for both the control and experimental groups. The bicep circumference
measurements were taken in centimeters before the intervention and after
completing the training program. These findings suggested that blood flow
restriction training resulted in a statistically significant increase in bicep muscle
hypertrophy compared to conventional training. The experimental group
experienced a greater increase in muscle size, highlighting the effectiveness of BFR
training in promoting muscle hypertrophy even at lower weights. The significant
results for the experimental group supported the hypothesis that BFR training led
to greater bicep hypertrophy compared to conventional training methods. These
42
findings contributed to the understanding of BFR training as a viable option for
enhancing muscle growth in young male adults.
The ANCOVA was utilized in this study to assess the differences in bicep
muscle hypertrophy between the experimental group (Blood Flow Restriction
training) and the control group (conventional training) while controlling for
baseline measurements. This statistical method allowed for the examination of
group differences in the dependent variable (bicep circumference) after adjusting
for the covariate (pre-test measurements). The assumptions of ANCOVA were
checked to ensure the validity of the analysis. The ANCOVA was conducted to
determine if there was a significant difference in post-test bicep circumference
measurements between the two groups after adjusting for pre-test measurements.
The analysis reported the F-value, degrees of freedom, and p-value for the main
effect of the training type. It was anticipated that the ANCOVA revealed a
significant effect of training type on bicep muscle hypertrophy. For example, the
results indicated that the experimental group demonstrated a greater increase in
bicep circumference compared to the control group after controlling for pre-test
measurements, with a statistically significant p-value (p < 0.05).
Ethical Considerations
The researchers provided participants with informed consent forms, PARQ
(Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire), at the start of data collection. By
administering the PARQ, the researchers assessed whether participants needed to
consult a medical professional before starting the exercise program. This helped
43
ensure participant safety and contributed to the success of the study's objectives.
The
AHA/ACSM
Health/Fitness
Facility
Pre-participation
Screening
Questionnaire was designed to check an individual's health status and identify any
medical issues or risk factors that may arise during exercise. The researchers also
informed the participants of the risks associated with BFR Training such as
potential discomfort and vascular stress. Application of BFR cuffs especially to
participants that were new to this kind of training may experience difficulty and
may feel different compared to the traditional resistance training. Briefing the
participants helped them understand what to expect during the period of training
and verify the plausible effects of the study. Bicep muscle hypertrophy could be
obtained with conventional training. It included lifting weights or doing resistance
exercises that work the biceps brachii. Conventional training may cause metabolic
stress, which can promote muscular growth.
44
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the researchers discuss the results and statistics of the findings.
The tables used in the statistics below use different methods: Tables (number of
tables that will be placed)
Table 9.
Demographic Profile of Participants
sex
Average age
BFR group
Male= 12
19 ± 0.82
Conventional group
Male=10
18.6 ± 0.92
Table 9 shows the demographic profile of participants from two groups: the BFR
group and the conventional group. The BFR group had 12 males with an average age of
19±0.82, whereas the conventional group had 10 males with an average age of 18.6 ±0.92.
This table depicted the gender and age distribution of the participants, giving a basis for
interpreting the study's sample demographics.
Workout Program
The program conducted included movements aimed mainly at hypertrophy through
blood flow restriction training. The bicep workout program used in the study included a
combination or variation of bicep curls with barbells and dumbbells, as well as isolation
exercises such as concentration curls. There were two groups: BFR and conventional
groups. The BFR group's primary component was the BFR bands on the mid upper arm,
45
which restricted blood flow. Participants performed in sets of 8-12 repetitions, resting
between sets. The load was intentionally lower to enhance stress and muscle fiber
recruitment in the BFR group. This approach aimed to cause muscle fatigue and swelling,
which would lead to increased muscle growth as compared to typical high-loading exercise.
The participants in this 6-week bicep workout program trained twice a week, every
other day. This approach was chosen to prioritize recovery between workouts, which is an
important aspect in preventing injuries and optimizing muscle repair. By resting their
bodies, participants adjusted to the training stimulus, allowing them to progress throughout
the program. This frequency aimed to maintain a balance between training sessions and
rest days to ensure that participants were not overtrained or injured. Furthermore, twiceweekly bicep exercise provided enough volume and intensity to induce hypertrophy
without overwhelming the smaller muscle groups. Biceps recovered faster than larger
muscular groups, but they still required enough rest to optimize protein synthesis and
reduce fatigue. This frequency also allowed for more scheduling flexibility, making it
easier for participants to attend and commit to the program, which is essential to progress.
In the study of Kassiano et al. (2025) which compared muscle growth and dynamic strength
adaptation found that both methods are effective in promoting bicep hypertrophy. The
study emphasized the role of training frequency suggesting that training two times a week
can provide sufficient stimulus for muscle growth while allowing enough recovery.
Meanwhile, in the study of Lopes da Silva et al. (2024) which compared eccentric and
concentric muscle actions on hypertrophy, suggested that eccentric actions are more
effective in inducing hypertrophy but noted that the frequency of training played a crucial
role in maximizing the effectiveness of eccentric training.
46
The intensity of the workout program was regulated with a rate of perceived exertion
(RPE) of 6 and 4 repetitions in reserve (RIR). This method enabled participants to calculate
their exertion levels and volume tolerance properly. An RPE of 6 indicated a moderate
degree of exertion, whereas an RIR of 4 indicated that the participant should be able to
complete four additional repetitions with good form at the end of a set. This approach
measured the intensity, allowing participants to adjust in response to changes in strength
and fatigue. Using this approach, the program ensured that the participants were exercising
within an appropriate range that promoted muscle growth while avoiding injuries and
overtraining. The RPE 6 and RIR 4 promoted a controlled and sustainable progression.
RPE 6 indicated a moderate challenge ensuring that the muscles underwent stress that is
essential to muscle growth. RIR 4 prevented the participants from reaching failure which
increased the risk of injury and slowed recovery. This approach also allowed
individualization as the participants could adjust the weight used based on their perception
of effort and ability to maintain proper form. It was important for the continuous progress
throughout the 6-week program as the load gradually increased while the strength
improved. Similar studies on producing bicep hypertrophy on the implementation of the
program were reported in the study of Kassiano et al (2025) which assessed muscle
development and dynamic strength adaptation by performing unilateral and bilateral
resistance training. This study showed that planned progression in weight training can
result into a significant hypertrophy. While contrasting ideas were also reported in the
study of Currier et al. (2022). It was discovered that while higher load and multiple set
training were great for strength development, different training prescription improved
muscle hypertrophy. This indicated that there were various effective methods for inducing
47
hypertrophy. This meant that there was a gap on the most effective hypertrophy progression
approach. This implied that a gap existed in the understanding of how different training
variables can influence muscle hypertrophy. Further research needs to explore more on the
combined effects of RPE, RIR and other training variables to develop greater guidelines
for hypertrophy focus training program.
The workout was designed to be performed in three to four sets of 8-12 repetitions
per exercise. It was applied to improve muscular hypertrophy and endurance. The range of
repetitions allowed the participant to challenge their muscle, and the multiple sets was to
ensure the tension of the muscle. This 6-week program aimed to encourage balance by
developing muscle growth as well as improving muscle endurance. 8-12 repetitions were
an efficient way to promote hypertrophy because they caused metabolic stress and damage
to muscles, both of which were necessary for muscular growth. The use of three or four
sets increased the stimulus by increasing the time under tension, ensuring that the muscles
were sufficiently fatigued. This rep and set method allowed participants to vary the weight
used based on their strength and fatigue levels. If the athlete could complete the maximum
number of repetitions with proper form, they might increase the weight on the next set.
This phase was essential to continue muscular growth. Furthermore, multiple sets help to
strengthen participants' muscular endurance, allowing them to endure and work throughout
time, thus improving fitness.
Similar studies on developing bicep hypertrophy during the program's
implementation was provided in Hoseinpour et al.’s (2025) study, which indicates that
training 20-30 sets per muscle group per week produced optimal hypertrophy results.
Participants who followed this training program experienced significant increases in
48
muscle size and strength over a period of six weeks. While different ideas were also
reported, Refalo et al.’s (2024) study, it was found that training to failure was not required
for muscle growth and that moderate effort with sufficient volume might produce
significant muscular hypertrophy. This indicated that there was a gap in understanding the
balance of training volume and intensity for optimal muscle growth.
The workout program focused on strength training, specifically for the bicep muscle.
Participants participated in a weightlifting exercise to promote muscular hypertrophy. This
method utilized resistance training to maximize bicep growth. The study implemented two
methods: blood flow restriction training, which used BFR bands to restrict blood flow, and
conventional training. This allowed for a comparative analysis of the two-training methods
effectiveness on bicep muscle growth of young male adults. Strength and resistance
training were the most efficient ways to promote muscle growth. The resistance created
enough stress to promote protein synthesis and muscle development. BFR and
conventional training allowed for a more holistic approach to bicep development.
Conventional training is a solid foundation for maximizing mechanical tension to induce
muscle growth. BFR training is a unique metabolic stress since it restricts the blood flow
which can induce muscle growth using lighter weights. This comparative analysis is useful
for determining which training method is more efficient in developing muscle growth
among young male adults.
Similar studies on producing bicep hypertrophy on the implementation of the
program were reported in the study of by Currier et al. While contrasting ideas were also
reported in the study of Krzysztofik et al. (2019) with regard to low load RT under BFR a
significant increase in the muscles cross sectional area was observed even without reaching
49
volitional fatigue in particular sets. This implies that a gap in the literature existed,
necessitating further research to conclusively determine the most effective training method
for bicep hypertrophy.
The program started at a perceived exertion (RPE) rate of 6 or 4 repetitions in reserve
(RIR) to gauge intensity and volume tolerance. Progression assumptions were made due to
a need for previous participant data, especially for participants with less than 3 months of
experience. The repetition range aimed for hypertrophy (8–12 reps) to avoid excessive
fatigue and muscle damage. Progressions were made in reps, sets, volume, or load. If the
participant has reached the maximum repetition range (12), the load was increased. Set
progressions were given if the participant adapted well. Still, if they did not, sets were
decreased if recovery was poor and only increased if the bicep muscle was not sore nor
fatigued for the next session. The systematic progression used in this program was essential
for continuous muscular growth. The RPE of 6 and RIR 4 served as a baseline for assessing
the participants' current strength and endurance. The 8-12 rep range was intended to
optimize hypertrophy while minimizing fatigue and injury. The idea of progressive
overload was implemented by increasing the weight when participants could complete 12
repetitions with proper form, ensuring that the muscle was challenged. Set progression was
only possible if participants got adequate rest. This individualized progression ensured that
participants were safe and might efficiently maximize muscle development in this 6-week
program, regardless of their weightlifting experience.
Similar studies on producing bicep hypertrophy on the implementation of the
program were reported in the study of Kassiano et al (2025) which assessed muscle
development and dynamic strength adaptation by performing unilateral and bilateral
50
resistance training. This study showed that planned progression in weight training could
result into a significant hypertrophy. While contrasting ideas were also reported in the
study of Currier et al. (2022), it was discovered that while higher load and multiple set
training are great for strength development, different training prescription improved
muscle hypertrophy. This indicated that there were various effective methods for inducing
hypertrophy.
The exercise's speed was moderate and controlled, which was essential to
maximizing muscle engagement while reducing the risk of injury. The pace was set to
ensure that the participants maintained consistent muscular tension throughout the whole
range of motion. By focusing on controlled movements, participants were able to optimize
muscle activation under tension, which lead to muscle growth. The target muscle was the
bicep, and the slow and controlled pace allowed for highly concentrated training stimuli,
ensuring that the target muscle obtained the most benefits from each repetition that the
participants perform. Similar studies on producing bicep hypertrophy on the
implementation of the program were reported in the study of Zajac et al. (2021) which said
that unintentionally slow tempo could occur during resistance training whereby a heavy
load or the manifestation of fatigue was responsible for a slower movement. An intentional
slow tempo could be purposefully used when the load was light enough to control and
fatigue was not a factor to an individual’s control to the velocity of the movement. While
contrasting ideas were also reported in the study of Krzysztofik et al. (2019), saying that
faster tempos might be more essential for neural adaptation and strength movements and
slower tempos increased time under tension which induce hypertrophy. This implied that
a gap about the most optimal tempo for maximizing hypertrophy and further study was
51
needed to determine the effects of different tempos on muscle growth and strength
development.
This table shows the first three weeks of the twelve-week mesocycle bicep
program. It consists of four exercises, specifying the number of repetitions, sets, rest
time and targeted muscles for each exercise. The exercises are variations of bicep
curls.
Table 10.
Adapted twelve-week mesocycle training program week 1 to 3
Name of
Exercise
One Arm
Bicep Curl
Barbell Bicep
Curl
Preacher Curl
Closed grip
barbell bicep
curl
Reps
WEEK 1-3
Sets
15
3
15
20
15
3
2
2
Rest
Interval
2-3
minutes
Target
Muscle
Biceps
Brachii
2-3
minutes
Triceps
Brachii
Biceps
Brachii
2-3
minutes
Triceps
Brachii
Biceps
Brachii
2-3
minutes
Triceps
Brachii
Biceps
Brachii
Brachialis
Triceps
Brachii
52
Table 11 shows weeks 4-6 of the twelve-week mesocycle program. It
includes Concentration Curls, Cable Bicep Curls, Seated Bicep Curls, and Barbell
Preacher Curls. The program has lower repetitions and higher sets compared to the
previous phase, with longer rest intervals.
Table 11.
Adapted twelve-week mesocycle training program week 4 to 6
Name of Exercise
Reps
10
WEEK 4-6
Sets
4
Rest Interval
3-4 minutes
Concentration curl
Brachialis
10
4
3-4 minutes
Cable bicep curl
Triceps Brachii
Biceps Brachii
Brachialis
12
3
3-4 minutes
Seated bicep curl
Triceps Brachii
Biceps Brachii
Brachialis
10
Barbell preacher curl
Target Muscle
Biceps Brachii
3
3-4 minutes
Triceps Brachii
Biceps Brachii
Brachialis
Triceps Brachii
53
Table 12 shows weeks 7–9 of the twelve-week mesocycle program. It
consists of Hammer Curls, Reverse Curls, Zottman Curls, and Bayesian Curls. The
program consists of 10-12 repetitions, 3-4 sets, and a 3-4 minute rest time, with a
focus on strength and muscular development.
Table 12.
Adapted twelve-week mesocycle training program week 7 to 9
Name of Exercise
Reps
WEEK 7-9
Sets
Rest Interval
Target
Muscle
Biceps Brachii
Brachialis
Hammer curls
10
4
3 minutes
Brachioradialis
Triceps
Brachii
Biceps Brachii
Brachialis
Reverse curls
10
4
3 minutes
Brachioradialis
Triceps
Brachii
Biceps Brachii
Brachialis
Zottman curls
12
3
3 minutes
Brachioradialis
Triceps
Brachii
Biceps Brachii
Brachialis
Bayesian
Curl
10
3
3 minutes
Brachioradialis
Triceps
Brachii
54
Table 13 shows weeks 10 to 12 of the twelve-week mesocycle program. It
consists of Cross-body curls, Incline curls, Spider curls, and Crucifix curls. The
program consists of 10-12 repetitions, 3-4 sets, and 3-4-minute rest intervals, with
a focus on strength and muscular development utilizing various curl movements.
Table 13.
Adapted twelve-week mesocycle training program week 10 to 12
Name of Exercise
Cross body curls
Reps
10
WEEK 10-12
Sets
4
Rest Interval
3-4 minutes
Target Muscle
Biceps Brachii
Brachialis
Brachioradialis
Incline curls
10
4
3-4 minutes
Triceps Brachii
Biceps Brachii
Brachialis
Triceps Brachii
Spider curls
12
3
3-4 minutes
Biceps Brachii
Brachialis
Crucifix curl
10
3
3-4 minutes
Triceps Brachii
Biceps Brachii
Brachialis
Triceps Brachii
Changes in Bicep Hypertrophy Between BFR and Conventional Groups
Paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the pre-test of the left bicep
circumference for the BFR group (M = 29.17 cm ± 3.20 cm) and post-test results
after 6 weeks (M = 32.08 cm ± 3.34 cm). There was a significant difference; t (10)
= -3.71, p = 0.009. Also, Paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the pre-
55
test of the left bicep circumference for the conventional group (M = 29.50 ± 7.88
cm) and post-test results after 6 weeks (M = 30.21 cm ± 8.35 cm). There was a
significant difference; t (10) = -2.76, p = 0.022. However, the BFR trained group
resulted in a higher percentage increase in muscle size. The BFR group had a higher
percentage increase in mid-upper arm circumference than the conventional training
group (10.00% vs 3.76%, respectively), with significant differences between pretest and post-test for BFR (p = 0.009) and conventional training (p = 0.022). Table
14 shows that both BFR training and conventional resistance training resulted in
significant bicep muscle hypertrophy.
Table 14.
Comparison of Left Bicep Circumference Changes Between BFR and
Conventional Groups
BFR group
Conventional
Group
Left MUAC Bicep Circumference (cm)
n
Before
After
%
p-value
Change
12 29.17 ± 32.08 ±
10.00
0.009a
3.20
3.34
10 29.50 ± 30.21 ±
3.76
0.022a
7.88
8.35
Paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the pre-test of the right
bicep circumference for the BFR group (M = 29.20 cm ± 3.51 cm) and post-test
results after 6 weeks (M = 31.97 cm ± 3.73 cm). There was a significant difference;
t (10) = -2.54, p = 0.027. Also, Paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the
pre-test of the right bicep circumference for the conventional group (M = 30.21 cm
± 8.03 cm) and post-test results after 6 weeks (M = 30.61 cm ± 8.23 cm). There was
a significant difference; t (10) = -3.31, p = 0.009. Table 15 shows that both BFR
56
training and conventional resistance training resulted in significant bicep muscle
hypertrophy.
Table 15.
Comparison of Right Bicep Circumference Changes Between BFR and
Conventional Groups
BFR group
Conventional
Group
Right MUAC Bicep Circumference (cm)
n
Before
After
%
p-value
Change
12 29.20 ± 31.97 ±
9.47
0.027a
3.51
3.73
10 30.21 ± 30.61 ±
2.45
0.009a
8.03
8.23
Table 14 and 15 show that both the BFR and conventional resistance
training groups experienced a statistically significant increase in bicep
circumference, with the BFR group showed more hypertrophy. The BFR group's
right bicep circumference grew by 9.47% (p = 0.027), while the conventional group
experienced just a 2.45% rise (p = 0.009). These data support the effectiveness of
BFR training as a hypertrophy-enhancing approach, especially for people who
struggle with heavier weights.
Previous studies suggest that low-load blood flow restriction (BFR)
exercise can also promote muscle growth. Ma et al. (2024) showed that BFR
training results in muscle thickness comparable to high-load resistance training,
supporting its use for individuals who cannot lift heavy weights. Zhang et al. (2023)
found that BFR exercise induced hypertrophy in untrained males, indicating its
effectiveness in increasing muscular growth through metabolic stress and muscle
fiber recruitment. These mechanisms were the same to those seen during high-
57
intensity resistance training, explaining why BFR training remains a very efficient
muscle-building mechanism even with low resistance loads. These results
suggested that it could be an effective alternative for biceps muscle hypertrophy,
especially for those preferring lower mechanical stresses. To get optimal results and
maintain security, consider elements such as BFR cuff pressure, proper addition,
and identifying indifference.
The effectiveness of BFR training in producing muscular hypertrophy could
be related to increased metabolic stress and muscle fiber activation, which caused
anabolic signaling pathways even at low resistance loads (Zhang et al. (2023). It
was discovered that low-load BFR training considerably improved muscle
thickness and hypertrophy, indicating its potential as an alternative to standard
high-load resistance training.
Furthermore, Spranger et al. (2020) showed that metabolic buildup during
BFR training specifically lactated and hydrogen ions—played an important role in
muscle growth by activating more muscle fibers. This process compensates for the
lower mechanical stress encountered in low-load resistance training, resulting in
hypertrophic adaptations similar to those reported in high-load training programs
(Spranger, 2020). While BFR training has shown better hypertrophy benefits,
individual variability, cuff pressure standardization, and exercise selection must all
be considered to provide optimal results and participant safety. The study's findings
were consistent with current literature, showing that BFR training could be an
effective option for muscular growth, particularly in individuals unable to lift heavy
58
loads due to injury or recovery restrictions. Figure 3 shows the changes within the
implementation of the bicep hypertrophy program.
Figure 3
Comparison of Bicep Circumference Changes Over Time Between BFR and
Control Groups
Difference between the control and experimental group on bicep
circumference
The results indicated that there was no significant difference between the
left bicep pre-test of the BFR group (M = 29.17 cm ± 3.20 cm) and pre-test of the
conventional group (M = 29.50 cm ± 7.88 cm). There was a significant difference;
t (10) = -2.62, p = 0.796. Also, the results indicated that there was no significant
difference between the right bicep pre-test of the BFR group (M = 29.20 cm, SD =
3.51 cm) and pre-test of the conventional group (M = 31.97 cm ± 8.03 cm). There
was a significant difference; t (10) = -0.728, p = 0.475.
For posttests, the results indicated that there was no significant difference
between the left bicep post-test of the BFR group (M = 32.08 cm ± 3.34 cm) and
59
pre-test of the conventional group (M = 30.21 cm ± 8.35 cm). There was a
significant difference; t (10) = 1.028, p = 0.316. The results indicated that there was
no significant difference between the right bicep post-test of the BFR group (M =
31.97 cm ± 3.73 cm) and pre-test of the conventional group (M = 30.61 cm ± 8.23
cm). There was a significant difference; t (10) = 0.688, p = 0.500.
Table 16.
Comparison of Bicep Circumference Changes Between BFR and Conventional
Training Groups
Bicep
circumference
(cm)
n
BFR
Group
Conventional
Group
Difference
pvalue
Left bicep pre-test
Right bicep pre-test
Left bicep post-test
Right bicep posttest
12
10
12
10
29.17
29.20
32.08
31.97
29.50
30.21
30.61
30.95
0.33
1.01
1.47
1.02
0.796
0.475
0.316
0.500
Table 16 compares bicep circumference changes across two training
methods: blood flow restriction and conventional training. The table displays the
average bicep circumference measured in centimeters for both the left and right
arms before and after six weeks of training. The pre-test stage showed that the
average bicep circumference was highly similar between the BFR and conventional
groups, indicating that they were well-matched. However, there was no significant
difference between the two groups. Post-measurement results suggested that the
BFR group had higher changes in bicep circumference than the conventional group
in both arms. The significance were not observe for the post-test measurements,
indicating that the change that was observed did not provide enough evidence to
support the hypothesis. While the BFR group had larger improvements in bicep
60
muscle growth, the study was unable to establish that BFR training was superior to
conventional training due to a lack of statistical significance. As a result, while the
data shows the benefits of BFR training for increasing bicep muscle circumference,
the findings were not substantial.
Adjusted Difference of Bicep Circumference based on Volume
A one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to examine
the effect of group on the dependent variable while controlling for average volume
(Load × Reps × Sets). The overall model was significant, F(2, 21) = 5.495, p = .012,
indicating that the predictors collectively explained a significant portion of variance
in the dependent variable. The main effect of group was not statistically significant,
F(1, 21) = 0.241, p = .628, η² = .007, suggesting that group membership did not
significantly impact the dependent variable when controlling for average volume.
However, average volume was a significant covariate, F(1, 21) = 10.990, p = .003,
η² = .341, indicating a strong relationship between average volume and the
dependent variable.
Also, a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to
examine the effect of group on the dependent variable while controlling for average
volume (Load × Reps × Sets). The overall model was significant, F(2, 21) = 7.172,
p = .004, indicating that the predictors collectively explained a significant portion
of variance in the dependent variable. The main effect of group was not statistically
significant, F(1, 21) = 0.675, p = .421, η² = .019, suggesting that group membership
did not significantly impact the dependent variable when controlling for average
volume. However, average volume was a significant covariate, F(1, 21) = 14.258,
61
p = .001, η² = .397, indicating a strong relationship between average volume and
the dependent variable.
The adjusted means showed that the effect of hypertrophy using BFR might
not have a difference between the control and experimental but had significant
effects on the volume of the workout per week. These findings suggested that while
group differences were not significant, average volume had a meaningful effect on
the outcome for both left and right bicep hypertrophy between the groups.
Table 17.
Comparison of Post-Test Bicep Circumference and Training Volume Between BFR
and Control Groups
MUAC Volume
(cm)
(kgxrepsxset)
Post-test
Left Bicep
BFR group
Control Group
Post-test
BFR group
Right Bicep
Control Group
30.5
Effect size
(η²)
0.003a
0.341b
0.001a
0.397 b
3587
30.5
3465
30.4
3673
30.8
p-value
3447
Note: a: Significant at p<0.05
b: Medium effect size at p<0.05
Although additional examination of the adjusted means suggested that these
differences may be primarily influenced by training volume rather than the
particular training method, the moderate effect sizes suggested that BFR training
contributed to hypertrophic adaptations. This was consistent with earlier research
that found that although BFR is useful for increasing muscle mass, when total
workload is taken into account, its benefits might be on par with those of
62
conventional resistance training. After adjusting for workout volume, the adjusted
means also showed that there was little difference in the hypertrophic responses
between the BFR and conventional groups. This implied that rather than the use of
BFR per se, the overall training volume might be the main factor influencing
muscle growth in both training conditions. Although other studies have
demonstrated that BFR is a useful tactic for promoting hypertrophy at lower loads,
these results suggested that its benefit might be lessened when training volume was
equalized. The importance of progressive overload and total workload in resistance
training programs was further supported by the substantial effect that volume has
on muscle growth. Hence, optimizing volume may be advantageous for those
aiming for hypertrophy whether or not they use BFR.
These results add to the increasing amount of research on BFR training's
efficacy, especially when compared to traditional resistance training. Dong et al.
(2025) said that although BFR has been widely marketed as a low-load alternative
for muscle hypertrophy, this study raised the possibility that, when volume was
controlled, its advantages may not be appreciably higher than those of conventional
techniques. Longer training periods, different BFR protocols, and possible
individual variances in BFR training responsiveness should all be investigated in
future studies (Miller et al., 2021). Furthermore, Wortman et al. (2020) mentioned
that recovery, fatigue management, and viability for various populations, such as
athletes and rehabilitation patients, should all be taken into account in real-world
BFR applications.
63
According to Ma et al. (2024), BFR training can provide hypertrophic
muscle growth comparable to typical higher-load resistance training, but with less
resistance. According to Zhang et al. (2023), low-load resistance training with BFR
promoted muscle growth in the arms and legs of untrained guys, making it an
effective training option for those who cannot carry big weights. These results
suggested that BFR exercise can effectively induce hypertrophy, particularly in
bicep muscular development in young male adults. Both groups showed muscular
growth over six weeks, but statistical analysis showed no difference. However, the
findings indicated that, despite identical muscle growth, a significant volume
difference may occur between the two methods. It had been observed that the
participants' strength had changed more than their hypertrophy.
64
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The summary and findings drawn from the results' analysis and
interpretation are presented in this chapter. Additionally, this conveys the
conclusions and suggestions that were developed thereafter.
Summary
This study investigated the effectiveness of blood flow restriction training
using BFR bands on increasing bicep muscle hypertrophy compared to the
traditional resistance training. The primary objective of this research was to identify
the effects of blood flow restriction training on bicep muscle hypertrophy using
specialized cuffs specifically made for this kind of training. There are two (2)
groups who participated in this study, one group for conventional training (no
intervention of BFR Training) and one group for experimental training (with the
intervention of BFR Training). These groups underwent certain training sessions
with the same training program to assess the muscular hypertrophy on bicep
circumference for both control and experimental groups.
Up-to-date studies were used as guides in performing the training sessions
with and without the use of the BFR bands. The major instrument that was used in
gathering data were the training sessions of the control and experimental group as
these were designed to seek information and evaluate how effective BFR bands
were when used for training programs in terms of the significant differences
between the results of the training sessions for the control group and experimental
65
group. In order to collect data, the researchers used experimental procedures. This
was carried out in order to gather sufficient and relevant data to meet the study's
research objectives. The experiment's collected data was categorized as primary
data.
The results showed a comparison of both groups before and after training;
the BFR group's left bicep circumference was 29.17 to 32.08, and the right arm was
29.20 to 31.97. While in the conventional groups, the left bicep circumference
varied from 29.50 to 30.21 and the right arm from 30.21 to 30.61. After six weeks
of training, both groups' bicep circumferences increased partially in hypertrophy;
the BFR group's left was 30.5 and the right was 30.4, while the conventional group's
left was 30.5 and the right was 30.8. However, there was a significant difference
based on training volume; for the BFR group, left and right were 3587 and 3673,
accordingly, but for conventional training, left and right were 3465 and 3447.
According to the findings, BFR training was beneficial for contributing to muscular
hypertrophy, but the improvement in muscle strength was considerably noticeable
based on the results obtained after the program's duration.
Conclusion
Blood flow restriction has been considered one of the innovations on
improving muscle hypertrophy; however evidence to support the claim on possible
increase on bicep hypertrophy is much of a necessity for further study. Both groups
experienced muscle growth over the duration of the study, yet the results suggest
that despite the similar muscular growth, a possible existence in training volume
between the two methods was observed after six weeks. Despite the study's short
66
duration, both groups showed an improvement in muscle hypertrophy and a
significant increase in training volume. Factors such as training load and overall
workload may vary between BFR and conventional training such that both training
methods appear to be effective for muscle growth, allowing individuals to choose
based on their preferences and goals. Further application on BFR training should
be implemented on programs.
Recommendation
For BFR application for longer duration of study. The researchers
strongly suggest that future research studies on BFR training be conducted for a
prolonged period. Extending the study's duration could allow for an improved
assessment of BFR's efficiency and risk. Research should also focus on the body's
long-term adaptations to muscle hypertrophy, strength, endurance, and safety issues
for possible BFR effects. This extended study will provide a better knowledge of
the BFR and its benefits in the population.
For Strength tests. BFR training has the potential to improve an
individual's strength, so future research ought to research into the benefits of BFR
training for enhancing muscular strength. It is highly encouraged that researchers
conduct more research on BFR training for strength improvement as an alternative
to typical resistance training methods. This suggestion was to determine BFR
parameters for strength development, such as cuff pressure, volume, load, and
frequency. Exploring BFR training in this type of training has the potential to
increase strength training for people of different backgrounds.
67
For young male adults. For young male adults looking to improve their
bicep muscle growth. Both approaches may result in muscle hypertrophy, and BFR
training can be used if individuals wish to lift smaller weights, are still recovering
from an injury, or simply want to vary their workouts. Things to consider while
adopting BFR training include proper technique and cuff pressure for their safety.
Regardless of the method they choose consistency and dedication to the program
are essential for muscular growth.
For future researchers. Researchers who want to expand on this study of
BFR training for bicep muscle hypertrophy can look into the training volume and
load of BFR training compared conventional training. Studies may focus on the
repetitions, load, sets, and recovery time of an individual who applies both methods.
Additional factors to consider are the pressure of the BFR that will be applied, the
bands that will be utilized, and the workout selections, which may improve the data
that will be collected. Furthermore, extending the activity for more than six weeks
can help to analyze the long-term effects of an individual's potential muscle growth.
The demographics of the participants can also influence the generalizability of the
results. Finally, integrating advance measuring techniques could provide more
precise assessments on the muscle hypertrophy and underlying physiological
mechanisms.
68
References
Androulakis-Korakakis, P., Wolf, M., Coleman, M., Burke, R., Piñero, A., Nippard,
J., & Schöenfeld, B. J. (2023). Optimizing Resistance Training Technique to
Maximize Muscle Hypertrophy: A Narrative Review. Journal of Functional
Morphology
and
Kinesiology,
9(1),
9–9.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk9010009
Balachandran, A. T., Steele, J., Angielczyk, D., Belio, M., Schoenfeld, B. J., Quiles,
N., Askin, N., & Abou-Setta, A. M. (2022). Comparison of Power Training
vs Traditional Strength Training on Physical Function in Older Adults.
JAMA
Network
Open,
5(5),
e2211623.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.11623
Chang, H., Zhang, J., Yan, J., Yang, X., Chen, B., & Zhang, J. (2024). Effects of
Blood Flow Restriction Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in
Untrained Males: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Based on a
Comparison with High-Load Resistance Training. Life, 14(11), 1442.
https://doi.org/10.3390/life14111442
Currier, B. S., Mcleod, J. C., Banfield, L., Beyene, J., Welton, N. J., D’Souza, A. C.,
Keogh, J. A. J., Lin, L., Coletta, G., Yang, A., Colenso-Semple, L., Lau, K.
J., Verboom, A., & Phillips,1 S. M. (2023). Resistance training prescription
for muscle strength and hypertrophy in healthy adults: a systematic review
and Bayesian network meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine,2
57(18). https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2023-106807
69
da Silva, L. S. L., Gonçalves, L. D. S., Alves Campos, P. H., Benjamim, C. J. R.,
Tasinafo Júnior, M. F., de Lima, L. C. R., Bueno Júnior, C. R., & Alves, C.
P. L. (2025). Comparison Between Eccentric vs. Concentric Muscle Actions
On Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of
strength
and
conditioning
research,
39(1),
115–134.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004981
Dong, K., Tang, J., Xu, C., Gui, W., Tian, J., Chun, B., Li, D., & Wang, L. (2025).
The effects of blood flow restriction combined with endurance training on
athletes’ aerobic capacity, lower limb muscle strength, anaerobic power and
sports performance: a meta-analysis. BMC Sports Science Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-025-01072-y
Rockhill, M., Early, K. S., Bryan, A., Tyo, B., Buuck, D., & McGinty, J. (2020).
Effect of blood flow restriction training on muscular performance, pain and
vascular function.3 International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 15(6),
892–900.4 https://doi.org/10.26603/ijspt20200892
Grønfeldt, B. M., Lindberg Nielsen, J., Mieritz, R. M., Lund, H., & Aagaard, P.
(2020). Effect of blood‐flow restricted vs heavy‐load strength training on
muscle strength: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Scandinavian
Journal
of
Medicine
&
Science
in
Sports,5
30(5).
https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13632
Hernández-Martín, A., et al. (2024). Blood flow restriction training and muscle
adaptations:
A
Meta-Analysis.
Physiology.https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2024.00112
Frontiers
in
70
Hernández-Martín, M., Plaza-Manzano, G., & López-de-Uralde-Villanueva, I.
(2024). Effects of low-load blood flow restriction training on muscle
anabolism biomarkers compared with traditional training in healthy adults.
MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14030411
Johnson, A. M., & Sandage, M. J. (2021). Exercise Science and the Vocalist. Journal
of Voice, 35(4), 668–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.06.029
Jørgensen, S. L., Kierkegaard-Brøchner, S., Marie Bagger Bohn, Mathias Høgsholt,
Aagaard, P., & Mechlenburg, I. (2023b). Effects of blood-flow restricted
exercise versus conventional resistance training in musculoskeletal
disorders—a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Sports Science,
Medicine & Rehabilitation, 15(1).
Kassiano, W. Nunes, J. P., Costa, B., Ribeiro, A. S., Loenneke, J. P., & Cyrino, E. S.
(2025). Comparison of Muscle Growth and Dynamic Strength Adaptations
Induced by Unilateral and Bilateral Resistance Training: A Systematic
Review
and
Meta-analysis.
Sports
Medicine.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02169-z
Krzysztofik, M., Wilk, M., Wojdała, G., & Gołaś, A. (2019). Maximizing muscle
hypertrophy: a systematic review of advanced resistance training techniques
and methods.6 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 16(24),7 E4897. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16244897
Lorenz, D., Bailey, L., Wilk, K., Mangine, B., Head, P., Grindstaff, T. L., & Morrison,
S. (2021). Current Clinical Concepts: Blood Flow Restriction Training.
Journal of Athletic Training, 56(9). https://doi.org/10.4085/418-20
71
Ma, F., He, J., & Wang, Y. (2024). Blood flow restriction combined with resistance
training on muscle strength and thickness improvement in young adults: a
systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Frontiers in
Physiology, 15, 1379605. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2024.1379605
Markus Estifanos Haugen, Fredrik Tonstad Vårvik, Larsen, S., Arvid Steinar Haugen,
Roland, & Bjørnsen, T. (2023). Effect of free-weight vs. machine-based
strength training on maximal strength, hypertrophy and jump performance –
a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Sports Science, Medicine &
Rehabilitation, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-023-00713-4
Miller, B. C., Tirko, A. W., Shipe, J. M., Sumeriski, O. R., & Moran, K. (2021). The
Systemic Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training: A Systematic Review.
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 16(4), 978–990.8
https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.25791
Nejatian Hoseinpour, A., Bassami, M., Ahmadizad, S., Donath, L., Setayesh, S.,
Mirzaei, M., & Mohammad Rahimi, G. R. (2025). The influence of
resistance training on inflammatory markers, body composition and
functional capacity in healthy older adults: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 130, 105731.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2024.105731
Nyakayiru, J., Fuchs, C. J., Trommelen, J., Smeets, J. S. J., Senden, J. M., Gijsen, A.
P., Zorenc, A. H., Van Loon, L. J. C., & Verdijk, L. B. (2019). Blood Flow
Restriction Only Increases Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis with Exercise.
72
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,9 51(6), 1137–1145.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001899
Patterson, S. D., Hughes, L., Warmington, S., Burr, J., Scott, B. R., Owens, J., Abe,
T., Nielsen, J. L., Libardi, C. A., Laurentino, G., Neto, G. R., Brandner, C.,
Martin-Hernandez, J., & Loenneke, J. (2019). Blood Flow Restriction
Exercise: Considerations of Methodology, Application,12 and Safety.
Frontiers
in
Physiology,
10(533).13
https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00533
Pignanelli, C., Christiansen, D., & Burr, J. F. (2021). Blood flow restriction training
and the high-performance athlete: science to application. Journal of Applied
Physiology, 130(4). https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00982.2020
Pignanelli, C., Petrick, H. L., Keyvani, F., Heigenhauser, G. J. F., Quadrilatero, J.,
Holloway, G. P., & Burr, J. F. (2020). Low-load resistance training to task
failure with and without blood flow restriction: muscular functional and
structural adaptations. American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory,
Integrative
and
Comparative
Physiology,
318(2),
R284–R295.
https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00243.2019
Refalo, M. C., Helms, E. R., Robinson, Z. P., D. Lee Hamilton, & Fyfe, J. J. (2024).
Similar muscle hypertrophy following eight weeks of resistance training to
momentary muscular failure or with repetitions-in-reserve in resistancetrained
individuals.
Journal
of
Sports
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2024.2321021
Sciences,
42(1),
1–17.
73
Sieljacks, P., et al. (2019). BFR Training and Muscle Protein Synthesis: A
Comparative Study. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33(4),
887-895. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002989
Spranger, M. D. (2020). Commentary: Blood Flow Restriction Exercise:
Considerations of Methodology, Application, and Safety. Frontiers in
Physiology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.599592
Wortman, R. J., Brown, S. M., Savage-Elliott, I., Finley, Z. J., & Mulcahey, M. K.
(2020). Blood Flow Restriction Training for Athletes: A Systematic Review.
The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(7), 363546520964454.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546520964454
Zajac, A., Wilk, M., & Tufano, J. J. (2021). The Influence of Movement Tempo
during Resistance Training on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy
Responses: a Review. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 51(8).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01465-2
74
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – High Performance Gym Request Letter
November 21, 2024
Ms. Elcy C. Lacambra
Administration Director
NU Laguna
Km. 53 Pan-Philippine Highway, Calamba, Philippines 4028
Dear Ms. Lacambra,
Greetings in Gold and Blue!
We, the researchers from the School of Arts and Sciences, Exercise and Sports
Science program, are conducting a study titled “The Effects of Blood Flow
Restriction Training on Bicep Muscle Hypertrophy among Young Male Adults”. In
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in
Exercise and Sport Sciences.
As part of this research, we respectfully request permission to utilize the HighPerformance Gym facilities on the following dates from around 7:00 AM to 6:00
PM:
• Monday: November 25; December 2, 9, 16; January 6, 13, 20, 27 (8 days
total)
• Tuesday: November 26; December 3, 10, 17; January 7,14,21,28 (8 days
total)
• Wednesday: November 27; December 4, 11, 18; January 8, 15, 22, 29 (8
days total)
• Thursday: November 28, December 5,12,19; January 9, 16, 23, 30 (8 days
total)
• Friday: November 29; December 6, 13, 20; January 10, 17, 24, 31 (8 days
total)
Our study involves 22 respondents who are NU Laguna students (names to
follow). The gym provides access to reliable and complete equipment essential for
75
our research. We selected these days while considering participant availability and
class scheduling into consideration.
We sincerely hope for your approval and support in this research, as this study
contributes to advancing knowledge of training techniques, raise awareness of the
importance of fitness and health and its applications in exercise science. Should
you grant our request, please sign below to formalize your approval.
Thank you for considering our request. We are grateful for your assistance in
facilitating our research.
Respectfully yours,
USHLEE ENRIQUE A. BASAS
Researcher 1, Bachelor of Science in Exercise and Sports Sciences
ELAINE JAIRUSSE R. CAPELLAN
Researcher 2, Bachelor of Science in Exercise and Sports Sciences
YUEN MAGDALENNA WILLIAM VERBRUGGEN
Researcher 3, Bachelor of Science in Exercise and Sports Sciences
Noted By:
ERICK VOLTAIRE P. TABING, RND, MSApN, CPSS, CPT, CSCC
Research Adviser
MILPERT JOHN B. MAROTO, LPT, MPES, CPT
Program Chair, Bachelor of Science in Exercise and Sports Sciences
76
Reviewed By:
Approved by:
NEILSON A. SILVA, LPT, MAEd
Dean & Adviser, School of Arts and Sciences
Ms. ELCY C. LACAMBRA
Administration Director – NU Laguna
77
APPENDIX B
Informed Consent for Bicep Muscle Hypertrophy Training Participants
We are fourth-year students at National University Laguna, pursuing a Bachelor of Science
in Exercise and Sports Science with a focus on Fitness and Sports Coaching. As part of our final
research requirement, "The Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Bicep Muscle
Hypertrophy among Young Male Adults," we are undertaking a study to determine the
effectiveness of blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise in stimulating muscle growth. This study
seeks to investigate the physiological responses and practical uses of BFR training, with a
particular emphasis on its effect on bicep muscle hypertrophy in young male adults. By
investigating this unique training technique, we aim to add to the academic and professional body
of knowledge in sports science, particularly in the areas of strength and conditioning and muscle
development.
This study intends to track and gather data on the physiological responses of young male
adults undergoing blood flow restriction (BFR) training, with a particular emphasis on bicep
muscle hypertrophy. This study aims to highlight the value of BFR training as a method for
increasing muscle growth by thoroughly monitoring and assessing changes in muscle size and
related factors. This study will serve to promote evidence-based practices in strength and
conditioning, as well as give significant findings for aspiring sports coaches, personal trainers, and
exercise science professionals, particularly in terms of the use of BFR training for targeted muscle
development.
Through this study, young male adults who participate in resistance training could get a
better understanding of the physiological effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) on muscle growth.
78
Participants can learn about the exact characteristics and applications of BFR training that enhance
bicep muscle growth by analyzing the data acquired. Furthermore, the findings will add to the
academic field of sports science by giving evidence-based information that could help other
individuals and professionals looking to use BFR training as a technique of improving muscular
growth and strength.
This study is intended to pose minimal risk of injury to participants. Before participating,
all individuals will be thoroughly screened to ensure they match the inclusion criteria and have no
contraindications to blood flow restriction (BFR) training. All BFR sessions will be done under
the supervision of the researchers, in accordance with recognized safety guidelines. Participants
will be continuously watched for any adverse responses, and the BFR pressure will be adjusted as
appropriate to maintain comfort and safety. If any pain or concerns occur, participants may stop
the session and withdraw from the study at any time. Support resources, including access to
medical professionals, will be made accessible as necessary.
Contact Information
If you have any questions, concerns, or wish to withdraw please contact:
basasua@students.nu-laguna.edu.ph
capellaner@students.nu-laguna.edu.ph
verbruggeny@students.nu-laguna.edu.ph
Consent
I have read and understand the information provided in this Informed Consent Form. I understand
the purpose of the “Research” the potential risks associated with it, and my responsibilities as a
participant. I also understand that I have the right to withdraw from the program at any time without
penalty.
Participant's Full Name: ___________________________
Participant's Signature: ___________________________
Date: ___________________________
79
APPENDIX C
The Six Week Mesocycle Program
WEEK 1-3
Name of
Exercise
One Arm
Bicep Curl
Target Muscles
Agonist
Antagonist
Biceps
Brachii
Triceps
Brachii
Dynamic
Stabilizer
Supraspinatus
Infraspinatus
Static
Stabilizer
Rectus
abdominis
Obliques
Wrist flexors/
extensors
Erector
spinae
Load
Reps
Sets
RPE
Tempo
Rest
Interval
40%
15
3
3-7
3:0:1:0
2-3 minutes
The One arm Bicep curl is an exercise that
biases the biceps brachii muscle. This is done
seated as standing variation uses more core,
leading to more margin of error.
Incorporating this exercise gives the
respondents a unilateral basis for the
program.
40%
15
3
3-7
3:0:1:0
2-3 minutes
The Barbell bicep curl is an exercise that
biases the biceps brachii, but uses more
brachialis. The repondents will use the
straight-bar as this gives the wrist a more
supinated position, giving the biceps more
peak contraction. This exercise serves as a
foundational basis for the program as this is
also a compound exercise
The Preacher curl is an exercise that isolates
the biceps brachii. This should serve as the
main isolation exercise for the biceps as this
locks the elbows on a fixed position.
Close-grip bicep curls target the inner head of
the biceps, emphasizing peak development
and total arm thickness, resulting in a more
defined and muscular body.
Rationale
Trapezius
Barbell
Bicep Curl
Biceps
Brachii
Triceps
Brachii
Brachialis
Rhomboids
Brachialis
Preacher
Curl
Biceps
Brachii
Triceps
Brachii
Anterior
Deltoids
Anterior
Deltoids
40%
20
2
3-7
3:0:1:0
2-3 minutes
Closed grip
barbell
bicep curl
Biceps
Brachii
Triceps
Brachii
Supraspinatus
Infraspinatus
Rectus
abdominis
Obliques
40%
15
2
3-7
3:0:1:0
2-3 minutes
Brachialis
Wrist flexors/
extensors
Erector
spinae
80
WEEK 4-6
Name of
Exercise
Target Muscles
Agonist
Antagonist
Dynamic
Stabilizer
Supraspinatus
Concentration
curl
Biceps
Brachii
Triceps
Brachii
Brachialis
Infraspinatus
Wrist flexors/
extensor
Supraspinatus
Cable bicep
curl
Biceps
Brachii
Triceps
Brachii
Brachialis
Infraspinatus
Wrist flexors/
extensor
Supraspinatus
Seated bicep
curl
Biceps
Brachii
Triceps
Brachii
Brachialis
Infraspinatus
Wrist flexors/
extensor
Supraspinatus
Barbell
preacher curl
Biceps
Brachii
Brachialis
Triceps
Brachii
Infraspinatus
Wrist flexors/
extensor
Load
Reps
Sets
RPE
Tempo
Rest
Interval
Static
Stabilizer
Rectus
abdominis
Obliques
60%
12
4
4-8
3:0:1:0
2-3 minutes
Trapezius
Rhomboids
Rectus
abdominis
Obliques
60%
12
4
4-8
3:0:1:0
2-3 minutes
Trapezius
Rhomboids
Rectus
abdominis
Obliques
60%
15
3
4-8
3:0:1:0
2-3 minutes
Trapezius
Rhomboids
Rectus
abdominis
Obliques
Erector
spinae
Trapezius
Rhomboids
60%
15
3
4-8
3:0:1:0
2-3 minutes
Rationale
Concentration curls isolate the biceps,
pushing them to work harder, resulting in
enhanced muscular growth and strength,
especially in the inner head.
Compared to typical free-weight curls, cable
bicep curls provide a better stimulus for
muscle growth and strength development by
maintaining continuous tension throughout
the whole range of action.
Seated bicep curls isolate the biceps by
reducing motion and allowing for a more
focused contraction, resulting in higher
muscle activation and a stronger mindmuscle connection.
Barbell preacher curls are a targeted and
intensive isolation exercise for the biceps
that eliminates momentum while optimizing
muscle activation, resulting in considerable
strength and growth increases.
81
WEEK 7-9
Name of
Exercise
Target Muscles
Agonist
Antagonist
Dynamic
Stabilizer
Biceps Brachii
Hammer
curls
Brachialis
Triceps
Brachii
Brachioradialis
Brachioradialis
Brachialis
Reps
Sets
RPE
Tempo
Rest
Interval
Rationale
3 minutes
Hammer curls are an efficient exercise for
improving arm strength and muscle mass,
specifically targeting the brachialis and
brachioradialis muscles, while also working the
biceps and forearms for a well-rounded upper
body workout.
3 minutes
Reverse curl is an effective exercise for
targeting the brachialis and brachioradialis
muscles, leading to forearm strength and
hypertrophy while also working the biceps and
core stabilizers for a total upper body workout.
3 minutes
Zottman curls are a flexible exercise that targets
the biceps and forearms, increasing muscular
growth and strength, while also engaging the
core and shoulder stabilizers for a full upperbody workout. .
Static
Stabilizer
Rectus
abdominis
Obliques
Erector
spinae
70%
10
4
7-9
3:0:1:0
Trapezius
Rhomboids
Rectus
abdominis
Biceps Brachii
xReverse
curls
Load
Triceps
Brachii
Supraspinatus
Infraspinatus
Brachioradialis
Obliques
70%
10
4
7-9
3:0:1:0
Trapezius
Rhomboids
Supraspinatus
Biceps Brachii
Zottman
curls
Brachialis
Infraspinatus
Triceps
Brachii
Brachioradialis
Extensor carpi
radialis
Rectus
abdominis
70%
12
3
7-9
3:0:1:0
Obliques
Ulnaris
Biceps Brachii
Bayesian
curl
Brachialis
Brachioradialis
Triceps
Brachii
Supraspinatus
Rectus
abdominis
Infraspinatus
Obliques
Wrist flexors/
extensor
Trapezius
Rhomboids
70%
10
3
7-9
3:0:1:0
3 minutes
Bayesian bicep curls have a distinct angle and
resistance curve, giving a continual challenge to
the biceps, resulting in greater muscular
activation, strength, and size development.
82
WEEK 10-12
Name of
Exercise
Cross body
curls
Target Muscles
Agonist
Antagonist
Biceps Brachii
Triceps
Brachii
Brachialis
Incline
curls
Brachioradialis
Biceps Brachii
Infraspinatus
Triceps
Brachii
Brachialis
Spider curls
Biceps Brachii
Dynamic
Stabilizer
Supraspinatus
Supraspinatus
Infraspinatus
Wrist
flexors/extensors
Triceps
Brachii
Brachialis
Supraspinatus
Infraspinatus
Wrist
flexors/extensors
Crucifix
curl
Biceps Brachii
Brachialis
Triceps
Brachii
Supraspinatus
Static
Stabilizer
Rectus
abdominis
Obliques
Rectus
abdominis
Obliques
Reps
Sets
RPE
Tempo
Rest
Interval
75%
10
4
8-10
3:0:1:0
3-4 minutes
Cross body curls are a difficult workout for the
biceps because they are performed from an
unconventional angle that improves balance
and muscle growth.
75%
10
4
8-10
3:0:1:0
3-4 minutes
Incline curls provide a unique angle for
targeting the biceps, allowing for a deeper
stretch and contraction, which results in
improved muscular activation and growth.
75%
12
3
8-10
3:0:1:0
3-4 minutes
Spider curls are an intense isolation exercise for
the biceps that eliminates momentum while
optimizing muscle engagement, resulting in
considerable strength and growth
improvements.
75%
10
3
8-10
3:0:1:0
3-4 minutes
Crucifix curls are a unique challenge for the
biceps, controlling them from an unusual angle,
developing balanced muscle development and
improving shoulder stability.
Rationale
Erector
spinae
Trapezius
Rhomboids
Rectus
abdominis
Obliques
Erector
spinae
Trapezius
Rhomboids
Rectus
abdominis
Infraspinatus
Obliques
Wrist flexors/
extensor
Load
Trapezius
Rhomboids
83
Program Rationale
The program starts with an RPE of 3-7 to determine individual effort and volume tolerance.
Participants are young male adults, thus initial progression assumptions are established with
caution.The repetition range is intended for hypertrophy (10-20 repetitions) to establish a
foundation of muscular endurance and encourage muscle growth while reducing the danger of
overtraining and muscle pain. Progressions will be implemented in repetitions, sets, volume, or
load, with a focus on perfect form and gradual development. When a participant hits the peak of
their prior reps with proper technique, the load will be increased.Set progressions are based on
positive adaptation; however, if a participant exhibits poor recovery, sets will be lowered. Sets
will only be raised if the target muscle group is not painful or fatigued prior to the next session.
This personalized approach ensures that young adults who are just starting out in fitness is safe
and have productive progress.
84
APPENDIX D- CERTIFICATE OF STATISTICIAN
CERTIFICATE OF STATISTICIAN
This is to certify that the research entitled “THE EFFECTS OF BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION TRAINING ON BICEP
MUSCLEHYPERTROPHY AMONG YOUNG MALE ADULTS by Ushlee Enrique A. Basas, Elaine Jairusse R. Capellan and
Yuen Magdalena William Verbruggen, had been checked and statistically corrected by the undersigned.
CERTIFIED BY:
Angelica M. Tabing
Statistician
85
86
APPENDIX
CURRICULUM VITAE
Elaine Jairusse R. Capellan
elainejairussecapellan@gmail.com | 09053369245
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date of Birth:
July 21, 2003
Age:
21 years old
Place of Birth:
Manila City
Height:
5’3
Religion:
Islam
Sex:
Female
Civil Status:
Single
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Bachelor’s Degree:
2022-Present
National University (NU Laguna)
Bachelor of Science in Exercise and Sports Science Major in Fitness and
Coaching
87
CURRICULUM VITAE
Yuen Magdalena William Verbruggen
yuenverbruggen@gmail.com
| 09565635804
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date of Birth:
January 12, 2003
Age:
22 years old
Place of Birth:
Belgium
Height:
6’0
Religion:
Catholic
Sex:
Male
Civil Status:
Single
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Bachelor’s Degree:
2021-Present
National University (NU Laguna)
Bachelor of Science in Exercise and Sports Science Major in Fitness and
Coaching
88
CURRICULUM VITAE
Ushlee Enrique Basas
shlnrq6@gmail.com
| 09632078554
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date of Birth:
November 9,2002
Age:
22 years old
Place of Birth:
Calamba, Laguna
Height:
5’7
Religion:
Catholic
Sex:
Male
Civil Status:
Single
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Bachelor’s Degree:
2021-Present
National University (NU Laguna)
Bachelor of Science in Exercise and Sports Science Major in Fitness and
Coaching