Blood Flow Restriction Training
An Essay on the Most Evidence-Backed Training Method Most People Have Never Heard Of
A group of men gained measurable muscle mass in their legs. Their training protocol: walking. Ten minutes a day, six days a week, for three weeks. The only modification was a pair of cuffs wrapped around their upper thighs, partially restricting blood flow to the working muscles. The control group walked the same duration, at the same pace, without the cuffs. No measurable gains.¹
That was 2006. Takashi Abe and colleagues published those results, and in the years since, a research base of over 200 peer-reviewed publications has accumulated around the training method those bands represent. The method is called Blood Flow Restriction training — BFR, or in its original Japanese form, Kaatsu — and the weight of evidence behind it is now difficult for any serious person to dismiss.
A single session of BFR training with loads of just 20% of one-repetition maximum increases muscle protein synthesis by 56%.² Growth hormone responses are up to ten times higher than conventional training at similar intensities.³ Myostatin — the protein that limits muscle growth — drops by 45% after eight weeks, matching the reductions seen with heavy traditional loading.⁴ And in a 12,642-person safety survey conducted across 105 facilities in Japan, the incidence of serious adverse events was no higher than what occurs with conventional resistance training.⁵
Whether BFR training works is no longer a live question. The studies say what they say, and they’ve been saying it for two decades. The more interesting question is why most people who train seriously — and most professionals who advise them — appear not to have read them.
Support This Work
This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.
Paid subscribers get access to all books — including The DMSO Book, The Kitchen Remedies Guide, Chlorine Dioxide, The PSA Trap, Breast Cancer, and more — with 1-2 new books added each month. Plus the Deep Dive Audio Library: 180+ in-depth audio book summaries and discussions.
Pricing Update: The annual subscription moves from $50 AUD to $50 USD on May 1 — the first change in five years. Current paid subscribers keep their existing rate. Free subscribers can lock in the current price by upgrading before May 1.
unbekoming@outlook.com
The Elastic Band Precedent
The pattern is familiar. When COVID lockdowns closed gyms worldwide in 2020, the fitness establishment told people that training with elastic bands could, at best, maintain muscle mass. Building new tissue? Not possible without heavy external loads. As Toni Lloret, a competitive bodybuilder and BFR researcher, observed: this was reasoning from authority rather than from evidence. The position amounted to “because I said so.”
Two meta-analyses — Lopes et al. (2019) and Aboodarda, Page, and Behm (2016) — had already compiled the available trials comparing elastic bands against gravitational loads and machines.⁶ ⁷ Both reached the same conclusion: equivalent levels of muscle activation, equivalent gains in strength and hypertrophy. The mechanism is straightforward. Muscle fibres do not detect the source of resistance. They detect mechanical tension. When sets are taken to failure or near-failure, the final slow-grinding repetitions generate high mechanical tension regardless of whether the resistance comes from a barbell, a machine, or a rubber band. The fibres respond accordingly.
The objections to elastic bands were not evidence-based. They were social proof arguments. If bands worked, wouldn’t the professionals use them? If bands worked, wouldn’t everyone know? These arguments confuse adoption with efficacy. They measure popularity, not physiology.
BFR training is encountering the same pattern. The most common objections — if it were so effective, why don’t more people do it? — contain no data, no mechanism, no engagement with the published research. They are objections from ignorance dressed up as skepticism.
What the Research Actually Shows
The core finding across the BFR literature is this: training with blood flow restriction at 20–50% of one-repetition maximum produces strength and hypertrophy gains comparable to conventional training at 65–85% of 1RM. This has been demonstrated repeatedly, across different populations, muscle groups, and experimental designs.⁸ ⁹ ¹⁰ ¹¹ ¹²
Several distinct mechanisms converge to explain why.
Metabolic stress and hormonal response. Partially restricting venous return from the working muscle traps metabolic by-products — lactate, hydrogen ions, reactive oxygen species — within the tissue. This accumulation triggers a cascade. Growth hormone secretion spikes dramatically. Takarada et al. (2000) measured GH peaks 290% above resting levels with BFR, 1.7 times higher than metabolic training without restriction.¹³ Fujita et al. (2007) reported tenfold increases.³ These are not marginal differences.
Protein synthesis. Fry et al. found that a single BFR session at 20% of 1RM increased muscle protein synthesis by 56% above pre-exercise levels, with increased phosphorylation of the mTORC1 pathway — the molecular switch that activates the repair and construction of new contractile protein.² This is the same anabolic signalling pathway activated by heavy conventional training, triggered here by loads that conventional wisdom considers too light to matter.
Myostatin suppression. Myostatin is the body’s brake on muscle growth. It limits the development of muscle stem cells and slows hypertrophy. Laurentino et al. (2012) demonstrated that eight weeks of BFR training with light loads reduced myostatin gene expression by 45% — slightly more than the 41% reduction seen in the group training with heavy loads and no BFR.⁴ The BFR group also achieved comparable muscle size and strength gains to the heavy-load group.
Type I fibre hypertrophy. The most distinctive BFR-specific adaptation. Conventional resistance training primarily grows type II (fast-twitch) fibres. Bjørnsen et al. (2019), studying the Norwegian national powerlifting team, found that adding just a few sets of light front squats with BFR to their existing programming produced significant hypertrophy of type I (slow-twitch) fibres — an adaptation that does not occur with light loads alone, and that conventional heavy training does not produce to the same degree.¹⁴ This has practical implications for any muscle group dominated by slow-twitch fibres, such as the soleus.
Crossover effects. Yasuda et al. (2010) applied BFR bands to subjects’ arms during bench press. The BFR group gained 8% in pectoral thickness, compared to 1% in the non-BFR group. Triceps growth was 16% versus 2%. Bench press strength improved 6% in the BFR group versus 2% without BFR.¹⁵ The bands were on the arms. The chest — which had no restriction applied — grew at eight times the rate of the control group. Dankel et al. (2016) corroborated these findings, showing that muscle groups proximal to the restriction site, including chest, shoulders, and back, also benefit from BFR applied to the extremities.¹⁶
Systemic effects. Cook, Kilduff, and Beaven (2014) had semi-professional rugby players follow a three-week training plan with BFR applied to the legs during squats. The BFR group improved not only squat strength but also bench press performance — despite having no restriction on the upper body — as well as sprint times and vertical jump height.¹⁷ Restricting blood flow in the legs during one exercise improved performance across the board.
The results are published across Journal of Applied Physiology, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Frontiers in Physiology, and others. The convergence across studies, mechanisms, and populations makes the case cumulative. No single data point proves everything. But the metabolic data, the hormonal data, the biopsy data, and the functional outcomes all point in the same direction.
The Safety Data
The natural first concern is whether partially restricting blood flow during exercise is dangerous. The data on this is substantial.
The largest safety dataset comes from Nakajima et al. (2006), who surveyed 12,642 people using BFR across 105 facilities in Japan.⁵ The sample was 45.4% male and 54.6% female, ranging from under 20 to over 80 years old, and included people with obesity, heart disease, neuromuscular disease, diabetes, and hypertension. Sessions ran 5 to 30 minutes, one to three times per week.
Among those 12,642 people, there was one case of rhabdomyolysis, one pulmonary embolism, two cases of cardiac ischaemia, and seven cases of venous thrombosis. No alterations in peripheral nerve function were reported. The researchers concluded that these incidence rates were no higher than those occurring with conventional training without blood flow restriction.
Clark et al. (2011) measured inflammation markers, coagulation markers, vascular function, and peripheral nerve function in healthy subjects over four weeks of BFR training. No significant alterations were found in any marker.¹⁸ Loenneke et al. (2011) compared cardiovascular, muscle damage, and oxidative stress markers between BFR and non-BFR groups and found they responded equivalently.¹⁹
The cardiovascular concern is real and worth addressing directly. BFR does produce a transient increase in heart rate and blood pressure. In healthy people, these changes are comparable to or smaller than those produced by heavy conventional training.²⁰ ²¹ In people with cardiovascular disease, the picture is more nuanced. Barbosa et al. (2016) raised legitimate questions about abnormal cardiovascular responses in at-risk populations.²² Pinto et al. (2018), however, found that BFR with low loads did not induce an exaggerated cardiovascular or metabolic response in hypertensive women compared to heavy conventional exercise.²³ Kambič et al. (2019, 2021) reported that BFR training in patients with coronary artery disease was safe and produced significant improvements in muscle strength and function, while reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressure over eight weeks.²⁴ ²⁵
Short-term safety in healthy populations is well-documented. In populations with cardiovascular risk factors, the data is mixed but increasingly favourable when proper screening and protocols are followed. Long-term data beyond eight weeks is limited — not because the evidence points to danger, but because the studies haven’t been run yet. This is a gap in the research, not evidence of harm.
Risk screening tools exist. Thomas Bandholm developed a scoring system based on Nakajima’s recommendations, assigning point values to conditions like DVT history (5 points), pregnancy (4 points), varicose veins (3 points), age over 60 (2 points), and female sex (1 point). A cumulative score of 4 or above contraindicates BFR training entirely.²⁶ Kacin et al. (2015) published a more detailed screening protocol covering absolute contraindications (clotting disorders, systolic blood pressure above 140 mmHg, history of DVT or pulmonary embolism, prior stroke) and relative risk factors requiring physician consultation.²⁷
The screening tools are detailed, evidence-based, and specific. Their existence indicates a mature research base — one that has moved past whether BFR works and into how to implement it safely.
Who Benefits Most
The range of populations that respond to BFR training tells you something about the robustness of the underlying mechanism.
Yasuda et al. (2015) tested BFR with elastic bands on adults aged 61 to 85. They gained strength and hypertrophy.²⁸ The same people for whom conventional heavy training carries the greatest injury risk responded to loads of 20–40% of their maximum — loads light enough to present negligible joint and connective tissue stress.
Kakehi et al. (2020) applied BFR to immobilised limbs in the absence of any exercise. The group receiving BFR sessions showed significantly less muscle atrophy than controls.²⁹ Takarada et al. had demonstrated the same principle twenty years earlier with post-surgical anterior cruciate ligament patients.³⁰ No exercise was performed. The bands alone attenuated disuse atrophy through mechanisms that remain, even now, incompletely understood.
Saatmann et al. (2021) mapped the cellular pathways by which BFR training increases glucose uptake independent of insulin, via enhanced GLUT4 translocation to the cell membrane — a mechanism with direct relevance to type II diabetes management.³¹
Bjørnsen’s work with the Norwegian national powerlifting team demonstrates the opposite end of the spectrum.¹⁴ Elite athletes, already highly adapted to heavy loading, gained significant type I fibre hypertrophy and myonuclear proliferation from adding a few sets of light BFR work to their existing programming. Takarada et al. found that professional rugby players who added eight BFR sets at 50% of 1RM over eight weeks increased quadriceps cross-sectional area by 12%, while the non-BFR group gained nothing.³²
A method that produces measurable results in immobilised post-surgical patients, sedentary elderly adults, and elite national-team powerlifters is not operating on a narrow mechanism. Multiple pathways are activated simultaneously — metabolic, hormonal, molecular — and the research community is still mapping exactly how they interact.
The Broader Pattern: Controlled Restriction as Medicine
BFR training does not exist in isolation. The same underlying principle — controlled deprivation of blood flow or oxygen triggering disproportionate adaptive responses — appears independently across multiple research traditions, each arriving at convergent conclusions through different doorways.
Remote Ischemic Conditioning (RIC) uses the same equipment as BFR — a blood pressure cuff inflated to 200 mmHg on the upper arm — but without any exercise at all. Five cycles of five minutes restriction followed by five minutes reperfusion. The clinical data spans hundreds of studies and thousands of participants. RIC reduces heart muscle damage during cardiac surgery by approximately 30%. It increases BDNF — the protein that drives neurogenesis. It improves VO₂ max in athletes, enhances insulin sensitivity, and reduces inflammatory markers across diverse populations.⁴¹ Cardiac surgeons at leading medical centres now consider omitting RIC a missed opportunity for organ protection. The cuffs restrict blood flow to one arm. The benefits appear in the heart, the brain, the kidneys — organs the cuff never touches. The mechanism is the same one documented in BFR research: metabolic by-products trapped by venous restriction travel systemically, pre-conditioning distant tissues against future stress.
Intermittent Hypoxic Therapy (IHT) operates at one further level of abstraction. Instead of restricting blood flow to a limb, IHT reduces the oxygen concentration in inhaled air from the normal 21% down to approximately 10% — equivalent to 6,500 metres altitude — then alternates with normal or oxygen-enriched air. The research tradition stretches back to Soviet aviation medicine in the 1940s, when physicians noticed that fighter pilots undergoing altitude chamber training experienced unexpected improvements in blood pressure, inflammation, and allergic conditions.⁴² Dr. Arkadi Prokopov, who has practised IHT for nearly forty years, maintains a VO₂ max of 39 at age 76 — a level typically seen only in lifelong elite endurance athletes — without ever having been one.⁴³ Israeli researchers identified what they call the “hypoxic-hyperoxic paradox”: that oscillations in oxygen partial pressure at the mitochondrial level are the decisive factor, regardless of whether the oscillation is produced by blood flow restriction, altitude simulation, or exercise.⁴⁴
Three independent lines of investigation — Japanese geriatric medicine, Western cardiac surgery, Soviet aerospace physiology — converging on the same conclusion: controlled, temporary oxygen deprivation activates cellular repair mechanisms that produce systemic benefits far exceeding what the intervention itself would seem to justify. BFR does it through cuffs and exercise. RIC does it through cuffs alone. IHT does it through breathing. The cellular destination is the same: mitochondria under controlled stress, clearing damaged components, strengthening survivors, building new capacity. That three separate research traditions arrived at the same place through different routes is itself a form of evidence — the kind that is difficult to dismiss as coincidence or artefact.
What It Looks Like in Practice
BFR training uses a band or cuff on the upper arm or upper thigh to partially restrict venous blood return from the working muscle. The distinction between restriction and occlusion matters. The aim is to slow the outflow of blood, not to cut off arterial supply. On a subjective pressure scale of 0 to 10, where 10 would be complete arterial occlusion, the working range is approximately 6 out of 10 for arms and 7 out of 10 for legs.³³ Bell et al. (2018) found that across 120 subjects, people were reasonably accurate at self-regulating pressure subjectively on this scale.³⁴
A capillary refill test provides a practical safety check: press a thumb against the skin of the quadriceps (or the palm, for upper-body work), release, and observe how quickly colour returns. If normal colour returns within two to three seconds, the restriction level is appropriate. Longer than three seconds suggests excessive pressure.³⁵
The standard evidence-based protocol for strength and hypertrophy, as outlined in Patterson et al. (2019), involves loads of 20–40% of 1RM, performed two to three times per week.³⁶ A typical set structure is 30 repetitions in the first set, then 15/15/15 in subsequent sets, with 30–60 seconds rest between sets.³⁷ The total recommended volume is 50 to 80 repetitions per exercise. The occlusion bands stay on throughout the sets and rests, maintaining metabolite accumulation in the restricted muscle.
Band placement is proximal — upper arm (just below the shoulder, where the biceps begins) or upper thigh (just below the gluteal fold). Not on forearms. Not on calves (though some experienced practitioners use calf placement, the researchers advise against it due to superficial nerve density in that area).³⁸
Devices range from purpose-built inflatable cuffs (the original Kaatsu system, Delfi Medical, Hokanson) to practical elastic bands with adjustable straps. The expensive clinical devices offer precise pressure measurement. Adjustable strap bands are far more affordable and, given the wide effective pressure range documented in the research, are adequate for most users.³⁹ Dankel et al. (2016) found that hypertrophy and strength increased similarly across higher and lower pressure levels within the recommended range — precision is not critical.¹⁶
The starting point should always be the evidence-based protocols: low loads, progressive introduction, slow escalation. BFR training experience does not transfer from conventional training experience. Regardless of how many years you have spent under a barbell, in BFR you are a beginner, and the adaptation period matters — both for results and for safety.
What We’re Looking At
Over 200 publications. Safety data on more than 12,000 participants. Replicated results across elderly populations, post-surgical patients, recreational trainees, competitive bodybuilders, professional rugby players, and national-team powerlifters. Cellular mechanisms documented through biopsy, hormonal assay, and protein synthesis measurement. Endorsement from researchers like Brad Schoenfeld, who in 2021 recommended that athletes training for hypertrophy incorporate BFR to target type I fibre growth.⁴⁰
The research on BFR has accumulated faster than the fitness industry’s willingness to engage with it. In the three years leading up to 2022, more studies were published on BFR training than in the previous thirty years combined. The interest among researchers is accelerating. The interest among practitioners lags far behind.
Some of that lag is structural. BFR training emerged from Japanese geriatric care, not from Western strength and conditioning culture. Its original application — helping elderly people maintain mobility — does not map onto the aspirational marketing of the fitness industry. It requires inexpensive equipment. It uses light loads. It looks unimpressive. In a culture that equates heavy barbells with serious training, these are liabilities regardless of what the data says.
The data, though, does not care about optics. The document trail is public. The mechanisms are described. The safety profile is established. The results are measured and replicated. The coaches, physiotherapists, sports scientists, and physicians who advise on exercise owe it to the populations they serve to read what has been published and engage with what it actually says.
The studies exist. They say what they say.
References
¹ Abe, T., Kearns, C.F., and Sato, Y. (2006). Muscle size and strength are increased following walk training with restricted venous blood flow from the leg muscle, Kaatsu-walk training. J Appl Physiol, 100(5), 1460–1466.
² Fry, C.S. et al. (2010). Blood flow restriction exercise stimulates mTORC1 signaling and muscle protein synthesis in older men. J Appl Physiol, 108(5), 1199–1209.
³ Fujita, S. et al. (2007). Blood flow restriction during low-intensity resistance exercise increases S6K1 phosphorylation and muscle protein synthesis. J Appl Physiol, 103(3), 903–910.
⁴ Laurentino, G.C. et al. (2012). Strength training with blood flow restriction diminishes myostatin gene expression. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 44(3), 406–412.
⁵ Nakajima, T. et al. (2006). Use and safety of KAATSU training: Results of a national survey. Int J KAATSU Training Res, 2(1), 5–13.
⁶ Lopes, J.S.S. et al. (2019). Effects of training with elastic resistance versus conventional resistance on muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
⁷ Aboodarda, S.J., Page, P.A., and Behm, D.G. (2016). Muscle activation comparisons between elastic and isoinertial resistance.
⁸ Takarada, Y. et al. (2000). Effects of resistance exercise combined with moderate vascular occlusion on muscular function in humans. J Appl Physiol, 88(6), 2097–2106.
⁹ Abe, T. et al. (2010). Effects of low-intensity walk training with restricted leg blood flow on muscle strength and aerobic capacity in older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther, 33(1), 34–40.
¹⁰ Wilson, J.M. et al. (2013). Practical blood flow restriction training increases muscle hypertrophy during a periodized resistance training programme. J Strength Cond Res.
¹¹ Yasuda, T. et al. (2010). Muscle size and strength response to bilateral versus unilateral blood flow-restricted training. J Strength Cond Res.
¹² Madarame, H. et al. (2008). Cross-transfer effects of resistance training with blood flow restriction. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 40(2), 258–263.
¹³ Takarada, Y., Nakamura, Y. et al. (2000). Rapid increase in plasma growth hormone after low-intensity resistance exercise with vascular occlusion. J Appl Physiol, 88(1), 61–65.
¹⁴ Bjørnsen, T. et al. (2019). Type 1 muscle fiber hypertrophy after blood flow-restricted training in powerlifters. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 51(2).
¹⁵ Yasuda, T. et al. (2010). Electromyographic responses of arm and chest muscle during bench press exercise with and without KAATSU. Int J KAATSU Training Res, 6, 15–18.
¹⁶ Dankel, S.J. et al. (2016). The effects of blood flow restriction on upper-body musculature located distal and proximal to applied pressure. Sports Med, 46(1), 23–33.
¹⁷ Cook, C.J., Kilduff, L.P., and Beaven, C.M. (2014). Improving strength and power in trained athletes with 3 weeks of occlusion training. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 9(1).
¹⁸ Clark, B.C. et al. (2011). Relative safety of 4 weeks of blood flow-restricted resistance exercise in young, healthy adults. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 21(5), 653–662.
¹⁹ Loenneke, J.P. et al. (2011). Potential safety issues with blood flow restriction training. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 21(4), 510–518.
²⁰ Brandner, C.R., Kidgell, D.J., and Warmington, S.A. (2015). Unilateral bicep curl hemodynamics: Low-pressure continuous vs high-pressure intermittent blood flow restriction. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 25(6), 770–777.
²¹ Mouser, J.G. et al. (2019). Very-low-load resistance exercise in the upper body with and without blood flow restriction: cardiovascular outcomes. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab, 44(3), 288–292.
²² Barbosa, T.C. et al. (2016). Intrathecal fentanyl abolishes the exaggerated blood pressure response to cycling in hypertensive men. J Physiol, 594(3), 715–725.
²³ Pinto, R.R. et al. (2018). Acute resistance exercise with blood flow restriction in elderly hypertensive women. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging, 38(1), 17–24.
²⁴ Kambič, T. et al. (2019). Blood flow restriction resistance exercise improves muscle strength and hemodynamics in coronary artery disease patients. Front Physiol, 10, 656.
²⁵ Kambič, T. et al. (2021). Hemodynamic and hemostatic response to blood flow restriction resistance exercise in coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Nurs, 36(5), 507–516.
²⁶ Bandholm, T. Risk assessment framework for blood flow restriction training, based on Nakajima et al. recommendations.
²⁷ Kacin, A. et al. (2015). Safety considerations for blood flow restriction training in clinical populations.
²⁸ Yasuda, T. et al. (2015). Effects of low-load, elastic band resistance training combined with blood flow restriction on muscle size and arterial stiffness in older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci, 70(8), 950–958.
²⁹ Kakehi, S. et al. (2020). Blood flow restriction in the absence of exercise attenuates muscle atrophy in immobilised limbs. Pilot study.
³⁰ Takarada, Y. et al. (2000). Effects of blood flow restriction on disuse atrophy following anterior cruciate ligament surgery.
³¹ Saatmann, N. et al. (2021). Effects of blood flow restriction exercise and possible applications in type 2 diabetes. Trends Endocrinol Metab, 32(2), 106–117.
³² Takarada, Y. et al. Blood flow restriction training with 50% 1RM loads in professional rugby players — 12% quadriceps hypertrophy over 8 weeks.
³³ Patterson, S.D. et al. (2019). Blood flow restriction exercise: considerations of methodology, application, and safety.
³⁴ Bell, Z.W. et al. (2018). Self-regulation of blood flow restriction band pressure by perception. J Strength Cond Res.
³⁵ Anderson, B. et al. (2008). Impact of patient and environmental factors on capillary refill time in adults. Am J Emerg Med, 26(1), 62–65.
³⁶ Patterson, S.D. et al. (2019). Blood flow restriction exercise: considerations of methodology, application, and safety.
³⁷ Wilson, J.M. et al. (2013); Vechin, F.C. et al. (2015). Standard BFR training protocols — 30/15/15/15 repetition schemes.
³⁸ Lloret, T. (2022). Blood Flow Restriction Training. Practical guidance on band placement and calf-specific considerations.
³⁹ Lloret, T. (2022). Device comparison — clinical inflatable cuffs vs. adjustable strap occlusion bands.
⁴⁰ Schoenfeld, B.J. (2021). Recommendation for BFR training to target type I fibre hypertrophy in athletes training for muscle mass gains. Referenced in The M.A.X. Muscle Plan 2.0.
⁴¹ Remote Ischemic Conditioning clinical evidence base: cardiac surgery outcomes (~30% reduction in myocardial injury markers), BDNF increases, VO₂ max improvements, insulin sensitivity enhancement. Summarised from peer-reviewed literature spanning multiple trials and populations.
⁴² Prokopov, A. (2025). Interview with Unbekoming. Historical account of Soviet aviation medicine observations regarding altitude chamber training and incidental health improvements in fighter pilots, 1940s–1970s.
⁴³ Prokopov, A. (2025). Interview with Unbekoming. Personal VO₂ max data (39 at age 76) after approximately 40 years of intermittent hypoxic training practice.
⁴⁴ Hadanny, A. and Efrati, S. The hypoxic-hyperoxic paradox. Israeli research demonstrating that oxygen partial pressure oscillations at the mitochondrial level drive adaptive responses regardless of the method used to produce them.