The effect of four weeks blood flow restricted resistance training on macro- and micro-vascular function in healthy, young men

Potential Moderators of the Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy: A Meta-analysis Based on a Comparison with High-Load Resistance Training

BACKGROUND

While it has been examined whether there are similar magnitudes of muscle strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low-load resistance training combined with blood-flow restriction training (BFR-RT) and high-load resistance training (HL-RT), some important potential moderators (e.g., age, sex, upper and lower limbs, frequency and duration etc.) have yet to be analyzed further. Furthermore, training status, specificity of muscle strength tests (dynamic versus isometric or isokinetic) and specificity of muscle mass assessments (locations of muscle hypertrophy assessments) seem to exhibit different effects on the results of the analysis. The role of these influencing factors, therefore, remains to be elucidated.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of BFR- versus HL-RT on muscle adaptations, when considering the influence of population characteristics (training status, sex and age), protocol characteristics (upper or lower limbs, duration and frequency) and test specificity.

METHODS

Studies were identified through database searches based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular strength; (2) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular hypertrophy; (3) comparison of BFR-RT vs. HL-RT; (4) score ≥ 4 on PEDro scale; (5) means and standard deviations (or standard errors) are reported or allow estimation from graphs. In cases where the fifth criterion was not met, the data were requested directly from the authors.

RESULTS

The main finding of the present study was that training status was an important influencing factor in the effects of BFR-RT. The trained individuals may gain greater muscle strength and hypertrophy with BFR-RT as compared to HL-RT. However, the results showed that the untrained individuals experienced similar muscle mass gains and superior muscle strength gains in with HL-RT compared to BFR-RT.

CONCLUSION

Compared to HL-RT, training status is an important factor influencing the effects of the BFR-RT, in which trained can obtain greater muscle strength and hypertrophy gains in BFR-RT, while untrained individuals can obtain greater strength gains and similar hypertrophy in HL-RT.

Changes in Arterial Stiffness in Response to Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training: A Narrative Review

Arterial stiffness naturally increases with age and is a known predictor of cardiovascular morbimortality. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training involves decreasing muscle blood flow by applying a strap or a pneumatic cuff during exercise. BFR induces muscle hypertrophy even at low intensities, making it an appealing option for older, untrained individuals. However, BFR use in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities is limited by the increased pressor and chronotropic response observed in hypertensive elderly patients. Furthermore, the impact of BFR on vascular function remains unclear. We conducted a comprehensive literature review according to PRISMA guidelines, summarizing available data on the acute and long-term consequences of BFR training on vascular function. Although evidence is still scarce, it seems that BFR has a mild or neutral long-term impact on arterial stiffness. However, current research shows that BFR can cause an abrupt, albeit transient, increase in PWV and central blood pressure. BFR and, preferably, lower-body BFR, should be prescribed with caution in older populations, especially in hypertensive patients who have an exacerbated muscle metaboreflex pressor response. Longer follow-up studies are required to assess the chronic effect of BFR training on arterial stiffness, especially in elderly patients who are usually unable to tolerate high-intensity resistance exercises.

Comparing low volume of blood flow restricted to high-intensity resistance training of the finger flexors to maintain climbing-specific strength and endurance: a crossover study

Introduction

It is acknowledged that training during recovery periods after injury involves reducing both volume and intensity, often resulting in losses of sport-specific fitness. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of high-intensity training (HIT) and low-intensity training with blood flow restriction (LIT + BFR) of the finger flexors in order to preserve climbing-specific strength and endurance.

Methods

In a crossover design, thirteen intermediate climbers completed two 5-week periods of isometric finger flexors training on a hangboard. The trainings consisted of ten LIT + BFR (30% of max) or HIT sessions (60% of max without BFR) and were undertaken in a randomized order. The training session consisted of 6 unilateral sets of 1 min intermittent hanging at a 7:3 work relief ratio for both hands. Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), force impulse from the 4 min all out test (W), critical force (CF) and force impulse above the critical force (W') of the finger flexors were assessed before, after the first, and after the second training period, using a climbing-specific dynamometer. Forearm muscle oxidative capacity was estimated from an occlusion test using near-infrared spectroscopy at the same time points.

Results

Both training methods led to maintaining strength and endurance indicators, however, no interaction (P > 0.05) was found between the training methods for any strength or endurance variable. A significant increase (P = 0.002) was found for W, primarily driven by the HIT group (pretest-25078 ± 7584 N.s, post-test-27327 ± 8051 N.s, P = 0.012, Cohen's d = 0.29). There were no significant (P > 0.05) pre- post-test changes for MVC (HIT: Cohen's d = 0.13; LIT + BFR: Cohen's d = -0.10), CF (HIT: Cohen's d = 0.36; LIT + BFR = 0.05), W` (HIT: Cohen's d = -0.03, LIT + BFR = 0.12), and forearm muscle oxidative capacity (HIT: Cohen's d = -0.23; LIT + BFR: Cohen's d = -0.07).

Conclusions

Low volume of BFR and HIT led to similar results, maintaining climbing-specific strength and endurance in lower grade and intermediate climbers. It appears that using BFR training may be an alternative approach after finger injury as low mechanical impact occurs during training.

Muscle strength adaptation between high-load resistance training versus low-load blood flow restriction training with different cuff pressure characteristics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, blood flow restriction (BFR) with low-load resistance training (BFR-RT) was compared with high-load resistance training (HL-RT) on muscle strength in healthy adults. The characteristics of cuff pressure suitable for muscle strength gain were also investigated by analyzing the effects of applying different occlusion pressure prescriptions and cuff inflation patterns on muscle strength gain. Methods: Literature search was conducted using PubMed, Ovid Medline, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases to identify literature published until May 2023. Studies reporting the effects of BFR-RT interventions on muscle strength gain were compared with those of HL-RT. The risk of bias in the included trials was assessed using the Cochrane tool, followed by a meta-analysis to calculate the combined effect. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the beneficial variables. Results: Nineteen articles (42 outcomes), with a total of 458 healthy adults, were included in the meta-analysis. The combined effect showed higher muscle strength gain with HL-RT than with BFR-RT (p = 0.03, SMD = -0.16, 95% CI: -0.30 to -0.01). The results of the subgroup analysis showed that the BFR-RT applied with incremental and individualized pressure achieved muscle strength gain similar to the HL-RT (p = 0.8, SMD = -0.05, 95% CI: -0.44 to 0.34; p = 0.68, SMD = -0.04, 95% CI: -0.23 to 0.15), but muscle strength gain obtained via BFR-RT applied with absolute pressure was lower than that of HL-RT (p < 0.05, SMD = -0.45, 95% CI: -0.71 to -0.19). Furthermore, muscle strength gain obtained by BFR-RT applied with intermittent pressure was similar to that obtained by HL-RT (p = 0.88, SMD = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.23), but muscle strength gain for BFR-RT applied with continuous pressure showed a less prominent increase than that for HL-RT (p < 0.05, SMD = -0.3, 95% CI: -0.48 to -0.11). Conclusion: In general, HL-RT produces superior muscle strength gains than BFR-RT. However, the application of individualized, incremental, and intermittent pressure exercise protocols in BFR-RT elicits comparable muscle strength gains to HL-RT. Our findings indicate that cuff pressure characteristics play a significant role in establishing a BFR-RT intervention program for enhancing muscle strength in healthy adults. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails; Identifier: PROSPERO (CRD42022364934).