Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Gazi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi (Online), cilt.30, sa.3, ss.98-103, 2025 (TRDizin)
The aim of this research was twofold: i) to investigate the relationship between leg circumference and limb occlusion pressure (LOP) by using an automated blood flow restriction (BFR) device, ii) to compare the LOP and leg circumferences between the dominant (D) and non-dominant (ND) legs. One hundred and four participants (age=20.79±2.47 years; height= 177.8±5.72 cm; body weight=73.74±13.24 kg) visited the laboratory for the testing session. D and ND leg circumferences were measured with a tape measure. After 10 minutes of resting, LOP was then assessed bilaterally in the supine position using an automated BFR device (Cuff width: 10 cm). Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used to analyse the relationship between leg circumference and LOP values. A simple linear regression analysis was also conducted on the D and ND legs to determine the predictive relationship between leg circumference and LOP. Paired sample t-test was used to analyse differences for LOP and leg circumferences between D and ND legs. Moderate positive correlation was found between D and ND leg circumference and LOP (r=0.5937, p<0.0001; r=0.5999, p<0.0001), respectively. The linear regression analysis model was found statistically significant (F(1,102):55.51; p<0.0001) with approximately 35.24% of the variance (R²=0.3524) for the D leg and the ND leg (F(1,102):57.34; p<0.0001) with approximately 35.98% of the variance (R²=0.3598). There were significant differences between the D and ND leg for the LOP and leg circumference outcomes (p=0.029; ES: 0.217; p=0.037; ES=0.207), respectively. Our findings suggest that as leg circumference increases, LOP also tends to increase in the lower limbs when assessing LOP with an automated BFR device with a 10 cm cuff width.