I cannot imagine a safe or beneficial result from blood flow restriction. This sounds like an unfounded notion, of which there is no shortage in medicine, but I would be willing to critique your research proposal or preliminary paper

I have a theory on stress and mental illness and I need someone who can confirm it with experiments, could you help me please?

Can you explain your theory for me?

Yes, I think nitric oxide causes taut bands, areas of extraphysiological stress in skeletal muscles, and that these taut bands alter the systemic distrubution of nitric oxide (also in the brain togheter with other important neutransmitters) giving rise to mentl illness. The theory is the Reich theory of muscular armor, I identified nitric oxide as the (sexual) molecule responsible for the emergence of mechanical extraphysiological stress in muscles

The theory is about the somatization of stress withib the muscular system in order to remove emotions and then that somatized stress becomes the direct cause of mental illness determining a systemic alteration of nitric oxide distrubution

Lewis S Coleman Thank you very much for your willingness to engage and offer critique on this topic. I appreciate your concern regarding the Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) training, and I understand that the idea of restricting blood flow may initially appear counterintuitive to safe rehabilitation practice. However, I would like to briefly highlight that BFR is not an untested method, but rather a growing area of interest within both exercise physiology and rehabilitation science supported by an expanding body of peer-reviewed evidence.

BFR, when applied with appropriate protocols and screening, has been shown to be safe across various populations, including clinical populations (post-operative patients, elderly individuals, and those with chronic diseases) and athletes. Modern BFR cuffs are designed to allow controlled, standardized pressure application, often using Doppler ultrasound or automated systems to determine limb occlusion pressure (LOP) and maintain it within safe limits (usually 40-80% of LOP for lower limbs, and 30-50% for upper limbs) (Loenneke et al., 2011).

Dear Nicola and Menuja, I am gratified to see that both of you young men are proposing fresh ideas that might inspire future research. Your efforts are much needed because medical research is now in crisis and theoretical advance has stagnated because the fatally flawed “Central Dogma of Molecular Biology” that has been the “prevailing paradigm” of medical research for the past 40 years is now exhausted. A fresh paradigm is needed to restore productive research. Both of you have interesting ideas. I suggest that you contact me via the Microsoft “Teams” audiovisual software so that I can ask questions to better understand your ideas and hopefully offer constructive criticisms. You may also explore my website www.stressmechanism.com where you can download copies of most of my published papers.