## 4 Discussion
However, our isometric task appears to bypass this biphasic response, likely due to the absence of post-activation potentiation, which is more typically observed after dynamic tasks involving greater mechanical output and metabolic cost. Although prior research has shown that BFR can enhance neuromuscular performance through mechanisms such as metabolite-induced potentiation, these effects have been predominantly observed in protocols using repeated concentric-eccentric actions or multi-joint exercises, especially in male and female participants [25; 45]. In contrast, isometric conditions limit muscle pump activation, hyperemic responses, and neural recruitment variability--factors that may be essential to trigger such potentiation. Our findings therefore suggest that acute BFR exposure under isometric conditions does not replicate the performance enhancements seen in dynamic tasks, potentially due to reduced metabolic stress, the absence of stretch-shortening cycles, or lower central excitability. This divergence highlights the importance of task-specific interpretation and reinforces the need to consider sex, contraction type, and occlusion parameters when evaluating BFR outcomes. The metabolic demands of isometric exercise alone may be insufficient to elicit post-activation potentiation or significant RFD enhancement. From a practical standpoint, the findings suggest that acute application of BFR does not significantly impact RFD during isometric tasks in young women. Although BFR has been extensively used to enhance hypertrophic and strength adaptations at low loads [11; 12; 38; 50], its acute effects on explosive force production under isometric conditions remain unclear. Given that improvements in RFD are a determinant of rapid force production, these findings raise important considerations regarding the specific contexts in which BFR may be most effective. Further investigations should examine the potential of extended BFR exposure and the load components of the exercise protocol to stimulate isometric force production and facilitate neuromuscular adaptations over time, moving beyond the current focus on acute responses. Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, although the isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) is a well-established and reliable tool for assessing isometric force production and rate of force development (RFD), it does not replicate the biomechanical demands of dynamic or functional tasks. Most athletic and daily activities involve rapid force generation under conditions that require joint displacement, stretch-shortening cycles, and movement-specific coordination. Therefore, caution is warranted when extrapolating the present findings to movement-based performance contexts, as the mechanical and neural requirements differ substantially. Second, while the study specifically focused on young physically active women, it did not account for individual differences in pre-session fatigue or recovery status, which may have influenced neuromuscular variability. Third, although different levels of blood flow restriction were employed, the duration of occlusion exposure varied slightly between participants, as each individual reached volitional failure at different times during the knee extension protocol. However, the overall training structure--number of sets and intensity progression--was standardized across subjects. While we did not implement multiple protocols with varying session volumes, doing so would have introduced confounding factors inconsistent with the controlled within-subject design of the present study. Another relevant methodological limitation is the absence of electromyographic (EMG) data, which would have enabled a more detailed analysis of motor unit recruitment strategies and neuromuscular activation patterns under BFR conditions. Future research should incorporate surface EMG measurement to complement kinetic assessments and enhance the understanding of neuromuscular responses across different occlusion levels.