Effects of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction on the perceived exertion, muscular resistance and endurance in healthy young adults

The effects of blood flow restriction training on post activation potentiation and upper limb muscle activation: a meta-analysis

Objective

This meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate the impact of blood flow restriction training (BFRT) on muscle activation and post-activation potentiation (PAP) in the upper limbs, to provide guidance for upper limb protocols aiming to enhance explosive strength and activation.

Methods

PubMed, CNKI, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases were queried to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of upper limb BFRT on muscle activation and PAP. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied using the Cochrane bias risk tool. Literature quality assessment and statistical analysis were conducted using Revman 5.4 and Stata 17.0 software. Sensitivity analysis and funnel plots were utilized to assess result stability and publication bias.

Results

A total of 31 articles involving 484 participants were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis results showed that upper limb BFRT significantly increased muscle iEMG values [SMD = 0.89, 95%CI (0.21, 1.58), p = 0.01]. BFRT had a significant effect on upper limb explosive force [SMD = 0.73, 95%CI (0.41, 1.04), p < 0.00001]. Subgroup analysis based on literature heterogeneity (I 2 = 92%, 80%) showed that exhaustive BFRT significantly decreased upper limb iEMG [SMD = -0.67, 95%CI (-1.25, -0.09), p = 0.01], with exercise modes including maximum output power of bench press [SMD = 1.87, 95%CI (0.22, 3.53), p < 0.0001], exercise intensity of 40%-70% 1RM [SMD = 1.31, 95%CI (0.61, 2.01), p < 0.0001], and pressure intensity of ≥60% AOP [SMD = 0.83, 95%CI (0.43, 1.23), p < 0.0001] reaching maximum effects and statistical significance.

Conclusion

Upper limb BFRT can induce muscle activation and PAP. BFRT with 40%-70% 1RM and ≥60% AOP in the upper limbs is more likely to promote PAP.

Systematic Review Registration

http://inplasy.com, identifier INPLASY202430008.

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.

Effects of blood flow restriction training on muscle fitness and cardiovascular risk of obese college students

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of blood flow restriction (BFR) combined with low-intensity resistance training (RT) on cardiovascular risk factors in obese individuals. Methods: Twenty-six male obese college students were recruited and randomly assigned to a control group (CON, n = 8), a low-intensity RT group (RT, n = 9), and a combined BFR training and low-intensity RT group (BFRT, n = 9). Results: The subjects in BFRT group showed significant reductions in body fat percentage and waist-to-hip ratio and a significant increase in lean mass and muscle mass; the peak torque, peak power, and endurance ratio of knee extensors and elbow flexors were significantly upregulated; the root mean square (RMS) for the medial femoral muscle, lateral femoral muscle and biceps significantly increased; the diastolic blood pressure (DBP) showed a significant decrease. The BFRT group also showed significant up-regulations in RMS of the difference between the adjacent R-R intervals (RMSSD), high-frequency power (HF) of parasympathetic modulatory capacity, the standard deviation of R-R intervals (SDNN) of overall heart rate variability (HRV) changes and low-frequency power (LF) of predominantly sympathetic activity. In addition, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C), insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) and fasting blood glucose (FBG) were all significantly downregulated in BFRT group. In parallel, low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) significantly reduced while high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C) significantly increased in BFRT group. Conclusion: BFR combined with low-intensity RT training effectively improved body composition index, increased muscle mass, improved neuromuscular activation, enhanced muscle strength and endurance, which in turn improved abnormal glucolipid metabolism and enhanced cardiac autonomic regulation.

Hormonal, immune, and oxidative stress responses to blood flow-restricted exercise

INTRODUCTION

Heavy-load free-flow resistance exercise (HL-FFRE) is a widely used training modality. Recently, low-load blood-flow restricted resistance exercise (LL-BFRRE) has gained attention in both athletic and clinical settings as an alternative when conventional HL-FFRE is contraindicated or not tolerated. LL-BFRRE has been shown to result in physiological adaptations in muscle and connective tissue that are comparable to those induced by HL-FFRE. The underlying mechanisms remain unclear; however, evidence suggests that LL-BFRRE involves elevated metabolic stress compared to conventional free-flow resistance exercise (FFRE).

AIM

The aim was to evaluate the initial (<10 min post-exercise), intermediate (10-20 min), and late (>30 min) hormonal, immune, and oxidative stress responses observed following acute sessions of LL-BFRRE compared to FFRE in healthy adults.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of randomized and non-randomized studies was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB2, ROBINS-1) and TESTEX were used to evaluate risk of bias and study quality. Data extractions were based on mean change within groups.

RESULTS

A total of 12525 hits were identified, of which 29 articles were included. LL-BFRRE demonstrated greater acute increases in growth hormone responses when compared to overall FFRE at intermediate (SMD 2.04; 95% CI 0.87, 3.22) and late (SMD 2.64; 95% CI 1.13, 4.16) post-exercise phases. LL-BFRRE also demonstrated greater increase in testosterone responses compared to late LL-FFRE.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that LL-BFRRE can induce increased or similar hormone and immune responses compared to LL-FFRE and HL-FFRE along with attenuated oxidative stress responses compared to HL-FFRE.

Acute Effect of Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction on Perceptual Responses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Several studies have compared perceptual responses between resistance exercise with blood flow restriction and traditional resistance exercise (non-BFR). However, the results were contradictory.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the effect of RE+BFR versus non-BFR resistance exercise [low-load resistance exercise (LL-RE) or high-load resistance exercise (HL-RE)] on perceptual responses.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed®, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science were searched through August 28, 2021, and again on August 25, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies comparing the effect of RE+BFR versus non-BFR resistance exercise on rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and muscle pain/discomfort were considered. Meta-analyses were conducted using the random effects model.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 2.

DATA EXTRACTION

All data were reviewed and extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer.

RESULTS

Thirty studies were included in this review. In a fixed repetition scheme, the RPE [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.04; P < 0.01] and discomfort (SMD = 1.10; P < 0.01) were higher in RE+BFR than in non-BFR LL-RE, but similar in sets to voluntary failure. There were no significant differences in RPE in the comparisons between RE+BFR and non-BFR HL-RE; after sensitivity analyses, it was found that the RPE was higher in non-BFR HL-RE in a fixed repetition scheme. In sets to voluntary failure, discomfort was higher in RE+BFR versus non-BFR HL-RE (SMD = 0.95; P < 0. 01); however, in a fixed scheme, the results were similar.

CONCLUSION

In sets to voluntary failure, RPE is similar between RE+BFR and non-BFR exercise. In fixed repetition schemes, RE+BFR seems to promote higher RPE than non-BFR LL-RE and less than HL-RE. In sets to failure, discomfort appears to be similar between LL-RE with and without BFR; however, RE+BFR appears to promote greater discomfort than HL-RE. In fixed repetition schemes, the discomfort appears to be no different between RE+BFR and HL-RE, but is lower in non-BFR LL-RE.

Is There a Minimum Effective Dose for Vascular Occlusion During Blood Flow Restriction Training?

Background

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training at lower exercise intensities has a range of applications, allowing subjects to achieve strength and hypertrophy gains matching those training at high intensity. However, there is no clear consensus on the percentage of limb occlusion pressure [%LOP, expressed as a % of the pressure required to occlude systolic blood pressure (SBP)] and percentage of one repetition max weight (%1RM) required to achieve these results. This review aims to explore what the optimal and minimal combination of LOP and 1RM is for significant results using BFR.

Method

A literature search using PubMed, Scopus, Wiley Online, Springer Link, and relevant citations from review papers was performed, and articles assessed for suitability. Original studies using BFR with a resistance training exercise intervention, who chose a set %LOP and %1RM and compared to a non-BFR control were included in this review.

Result

Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. %LOP ranged from 40 to 150%. %1RM used ranged from 15 to 80%. Training at 1RM ≤20%, or ≥ 80% did not produce significant strength results compared to controls. Applying %LOP of ≤50% and ≥ 80% did not produce significant strength improvement compared to controls. This may be due to a mechanism mediated by lactate accumulation, which is facilitated by increased training volume and a moderate exercise intensity.

Conclusion

Training at a minimum of 30 %1RM with BFR is required for strength gains matching non-BFR high intensity training. Moderate intensity training (40-60%1RM) with BFR may produce results exceeding non-BFR high intensity however the literature is sparse. A %LOP of 50-80% is optimal for BFR training.