Low-Load Blood Flow Restriction and High-Load Resistance Training Induce Comparable Changes in Patellar Tendon Properties

[Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) in patients before and after total knee arthroplasty]

BACKGROUND

In healthy individuals, blood flow restriction training (BFRT) has shown positive effects on muscle mass, strength, fatigue resistance, as well as tendon and bone metabolism. BFRT reduces blood flow in the extremities using inflatable cuffs, creating local muscular hypoxia, which produces an anabolic metabolic environment. This promotes significant muscular and cardiovascular adaptations even at low mechanical training loads.

KNEE ENDOPROSTHESES

BFRT also shows promising initial results in pre- and postoperative applications for knee endoprostheses (KTEP). Both preoperative and postoperative BFRT can improve muscle strength and joint function, accelerate recovery, and alleviate pain. Although the method is generally safe, potential risks such as discomfort and rare side effects must be considered. Clear application protocols are still lacking, necessitating further research and individualized programs to achieve optimal training effects. BFRT thus offers an innovative way to effectively rehabilitate patients despite their low load tolerance.

The Use of Free Weight Squats in Sports: A Narrative Review-Squatting Movements, Adaptation, and Sports Performance: Physiological

ABSTRACT

Stone, MH, Hornsby, G, Mizuguchi, S, Sato, K, Gahreman, D, Duca, M, Carroll, K, Ramsey, MW, Stone, ME, and Haff, GG. The use of free weight squats in sports: a narrative review-squatting movements, adaptation, and sports performance: physiological. J Strength Cond Res 38(8): 1494-1508, 2024-The squat and its variants can provide numerous benefits including positively affecting sports performance and injury prevention, injury severity reduction, and rehabilitation. The positive benefits of squat are likely the result of training-induced neural alterations and mechanical and morphological adaptations in tendons, skeletal muscles, and bones, resulting in increased tissue stiffness and cross-sectional area (CSA). Although direct evidence is lacking, structural adaptations can also be expected to occur in ligaments. These adaptations are thought to beneficially increase force transmission and mechanical resistance (e.g., resistance to mechanical strain) and reduce the likelihood and severity of injuries. Adaptations such as these, also likely play an important role in rehabilitation, particularly for injuries that require restricted use or immobilization of body parts and thus lead to a consequential reduction in the CSA and alterations in the mechanical properties of tendons, skeletal muscles, and ligaments. Both volume and particularly intensity (e.g., levels of loading used) of training seem to be important for the mechanical and morphological adaptations for at least skeletal muscles, tendons, and bones. Therefore, the training intensity and volume used for the squat and its variations should progressively become greater while adhering to the concept of periodization and recognized training principles.

Microvascular Reactivity Is Greater Following Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise Compared with Traditional Resistance Exercise

ABSTRACT

Perlet, MR, Hosick, PA, Licameli, N, and Matthews, EL. Microvascular reactivity is greater following blood flow restriction resistance exercise compared with traditional resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2024-Chronic blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance exercise can improve muscular strength, hypertrophy, and microvasculature function, but the acute microvascular effects are unknown. We aimed to test the effects of acute BFR resistance exercise on postexercise microvascular reactivity in an exercising muscle and nonexercising muscle compared with traditional resistance exercise (TRE). Twenty-five adults (men = 14, women = 11, age: 22 ± 3 years, body mass: 71.69 ± 14.49 kg, height: 170 ± 10 cm) completed barbell back squat 1-repetition maximum (1RM) testing followed by 2 randomized and counterbalanced resistance exercise visits separated by ≥48 hours. The 2 visits involved either BFR (4 sets of 30-15-15-15 repetitions at 30% 1RM, with 60-second rest intervals) or TRE (4 sets of 10 repetitions at 70% 1RM, 60-second rest intervals). During each exercise visit, a pre- and postbarbell back squat vascular occlusion test was performed using near-infrared spectroscopy to measure skeletal muscle oxygen (SmO2) in the vastus lateralis (VL) and flexor carpi radialis (FCR). Two-way repeated-measures ANOVA found an interaction effect (p = 0.020) for SmO2 reactivity in the VL. Post hoc analysis found greater reactive hyperemia postexercise in the VL for the BFR condition (p < 0.001) but not the TRE condition (p ≥ 0.05). There were no time, condition, or interaction effects (all p > 0.05) for the same analysis in the FCR. This analysis suggests that BFR, but not TRE, lead to acutely improved microvasculature function. Moreover, it suggests that the effects of BFR resistance exercise are local to the exercised or occluded limb and not systemic.

Effects of blood flow restriction training on physical fitness among athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) is an effective, scientific and safe training method, but its effect on the overall quality of athletes remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to clarify the effects of BFRT on the physical fitness among athletes. Based on the PRISMA guidelines, searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and SCOUPS, the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool was used to assess methodological quality, and RevMan 5.4 and STATA 15.0 software were used to analyze the data. A meta-analysis of 28 studies with a total sample size of 542 athletes aged 14-26 years and assessed as low risk for quality was performed. Our results revealed that the BFRT intervention had small to large improvements in the athletes' strength (ES = 0.74-1.03), power (ES = 0.46), speed (ES = 0.54), endurance (ES = 1.39-1.40), body composition (ES = 0.28-1.23), while there was no significant effect on body mass (p > 0.05). Subgroup analyses revealed that moderator variables (training duration, frequency, load, cuff pressure, and pressurization time) also had varying degrees of effect on athletes' physical fitness parameters. In conclusion, BFRT had a positive effect on the physical fitness parameters of the athletes, with significantly improved strength, power, speed, endurance and body composition, but not body mass parameters. When the training frequency ≥ 3 times/week, cuff pressure ≥ 160 mmHg, and pressurization time ≥ 10 min, the BFRT group was more favorable for the improvement of physical fitness parameters.

Effects of low-load blood flow restriction training in healthy adult tendons: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effects of low-load blood flow restriction training (LL-BFR) on healthy adult tendons.

DESIGN

A systematic review with meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

Six electronic databases were searched by two researchers.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing the effects of LL-BFR to high-load resistance training (HL-RT) or low-load resistance training (LL-RT) in healthy adult tendons.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers selected the eligible clinical trials, and one reviewer exported the data. Two reviewers evaluated the study quality and risk of bias using the PEDro scale and the ROB2 scale. We performed meta-analysis where appropriate using a random-effects model. We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

Six studies were eligible. We analyzed tendon cross-sectional area (CSA) and tendon stiffness as the outcomes. Across all comparisons, there was low-to moderate-quality evidence of a difference between LL-BFR and LL-RT immediately after exercise. There was high-quality evidence of no difference between LL-BFR and HL-RT in the long term.

CONCLUSION

The effects of LL-BFR on the tendons depends on the time and dose of the intervention. LL-BFR could be useful to increase the CSA of the tendons in a similar or superior way to HL-RT after 8 weeks of intervention.

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.

Blood flow restriction training does not negatively alter the mechanical strength or histomorphology of uninjured equine superficial digital flexor tendons

BACKGROUND

Low load exercise training with blood flow restriction (BFR) has become increasingly used by human physical therapists to prescribe controlled exercise following orthopaedic injury; its effects on the equine superficial digital flexor tendon (SDFT), however, are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate outcomes of pressure specific BFR walking exercise on uninjured equine SDFT biomechanics and histomorphology.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled in vivo experiment.

METHODS

Four forelimbs of four horses were exposed to 40 BFR-walk sessions (10-min interval walking) on a treadmill over a 56-day study period with their contralateral forelimbs serving as untreated controls. Similarly, four forelimbs of four control horses were exposed to 40 sham cuff walk sessions. On study Day 56, all horses (n = 8) were humanely euthanised and forelimb SDFTs underwent non-destructive biomechanical testing and corresponding histomorphological analysis. Significance in biomechanical parameters between treatment groups was analysed using a mixed-effects ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc tests.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences in SDFT stiffness for both first (p = 0.02) and last cycles (p = 0.03) were appreciated within the BFR treated group only, with BFR exposed forelimbs being significantly stiffer than the contralateral unexposed forelimbs. When normalised to cross-sectional area, no significant differences were appreciated among treatment groups in elastic modulus for the first (p = 0.5) or last cycles (p = 0.4). No histological differences were appreciated among treatment groups according to Bonar, Movin, or musculotendinous junction evaluation criteria.

MAIN LIMITATIONS

Short-term comparisons were performed in a small sample population without correlation to performance outcome measures. Optimal occlusion percentages and walk protocols remain unknown.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated no negative impact of BFR on mechanical strength of the equine SDFT; however, evidence suggests that BFR results in increased tendon stiffness based on biomechanical testing and subsequent calculations. No consistent detrimental histomorphological changes were seen.

Individual distribution of muscle hypertrophy among hamstring muscle heads: Adding muscle volume where you need is not so simple

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine whether a 9-week resistance training program based on high load (HL) versus low load combined with blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) induced a similar (i) distribution of muscle hypertrophy among hamstring heads (semimembranosus, SM; semitendinosus, ST; and biceps femoris long head, BF) and (ii) magnitude of tendon hypertrophy of ST, using a parallel randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

A total of 45 participants were randomly allocated to one of three groups: HL, LL-BFR, and control (CON). Both HL and LL-BFR performed a 9-week resistance training program composed of seated leg curl and stiff-leg deadlift exercises. Freehand 3D ultrasound was used to assess the changes in muscle and tendon volume.

RESULTS

The increase in ST volume was greater in HL (26.5 ± 25.5%) compared to CON (p = 0.004). No difference was found between CON and LL-BFR for the ST muscle volume (p = 0.627). The change in SM muscle volume was greater for LL-BFR (21.6 ± 27.8%) compared to CON (p = 0.025). No difference was found between HL and CON for the SM muscle volume (p = 0.178).There was no change in BF muscle volume in LL-BFR (14.0 ± 16.5%; p = 0.436) compared to CON group. No difference was found between HL and CON for the BF muscle volume (p = 1.0). Regarding ST tendon volume, we did not report an effect of training regimens (p = 0.411).

CONCLUSION

These results provide evidence that the HL program induced a selective hypertrophy of the ST while LL-BFR induced hypertrophy of SM. The magnitude of the selective hypertrophy observed within each group varied greatly between individuals. This finding suggests that it is very difficult to early determine the location of the hypertrophy among a muscle group.

Idiosyncratic bone responses to blood flow restriction exercise: new insights and future directions

Applying blood flow restriction (BFR) during low-load exercise induces beneficial adaptations of the myotendinous and neuromuscular systems. Despite the low mechanical tension, BFR exercise facilitates a localized hypoxic environment and increase in metabolic stress, widely regarded as the primary stimulus for tissue adaptations. First evidence indicates that low-load BFR exercise is effective in promoting an osteogenic response in bone, although this has previously been postulated to adapt primarily during high-impact weight-bearing exercise. Besides studies investigating the acute response of bone biomarkers following BFR exercise, first long-term trials demonstrate beneficial adaptations in bone in both healthy and clinical populations. Despite the increasing number of studies, the physiological mechanisms are largely unknown. Moreover, heterogeneity in methodological approaches such as biomarkers of bone metabolism measured, participant and study characteristics, and time course of measurement renders it difficult to formulate accurate conclusions. Furthermore, incongruity in the methods of BFR application (e.g., cuff pressure) limits the comparability of datasets and thus hinders generalizability of study findings. Appropriate use of biomarkers, effective BFR application, and befitting study design have the potential to progress knowledge on the acute and chronic response of bone to BFR exercise and contribute toward the development of a novel strategy to protect or enhance bone health. Therefore, the purpose of the present synthesis review is to 1) evaluate current mechanistic evidence; 2) discuss and offer explanations for similar and contrasting data findings; and 3) create a methodological framework for future mechanistic and applied research.

Specific collagen peptides increase adaptions of patellar tendon morphology following 14-weeks of high-load resistance training: A randomized-controlled trial

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a supplementation with specific collagen peptides (SCP) combined with resistance training (RT) on changes in structural properties of the patellar tendon. Furthermore, tendon stiffness as well as maximal voluntary knee extension strength and cross-sectional area (CSA) of the rectus femoris muscle were assessed. In a randomized, placebo-controlled study, 50 healthy, moderately active male participants completed a 14-week resistance training program with three weekly sessions (70-85% of 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) for the knee extensors. While the SCP group received 5g of specific collagen peptides daily, the other group received the same amount of a placebo (PLA) supplement. The SCP supplementation led to a significant greater (p < 0.05) increase in patellar tendon CSA compared with the PLA group at 60% and 70% of the patellar tendon length starting from the proximal insertion. Both groups increased tendon stiffness (p < 0.01), muscle CSA (p < 0.05) and muscular strength (p < 0.001) throughout the intervention without significant differences between the groups. The current study shows that in healthy, moderately active men, supplementation of SCP in combination with RT leads to greater increase in patellar tendon CSA than RT alone. Since underlying mechanisms of tendon hypertrophy are currently unknown, further studies should investigate potential mechanisms causing the increased morphology adaptions following SCP supplementation.Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register identifier: DRKS00029244..

An Updated Panorama of Blood-Flow-Restriction Methods

BACKGROUND

Exercise with blood-flow restriction (BFR) is being increasingly used by practitioners working with athletic and clinical populations alike. Most early research combined BFR with low-load resistance training and consistently reported increased muscle size and strength without requiring the heavier loads that are traditionally used for unrestricted resistance training. However, this field has evolved with several different active and passive BFR methods emerging in recent research.

PURPOSE

This commentary aims to synthesize the evolving BFR methods for cohorts ranging from healthy athletes to clinical or load-compromised populations. In addition, real-world considerations for practitioners are highlighted, along with areas requiring further research.

CONCLUSIONS

The BFR literature now incorporates several active and passive methods, reflecting a growing implementation of BFR in sport and allied health fields. In addition to low-load resistance training, BFR is being combined with high-load resistance exercise, aerobic and anaerobic energy systems training of varying intensities, and sport-specific activities. BFR is also being applied passively in the absence of physical activity during periods of muscle disuse or rehabilitation or prior to exercise as a preconditioning or performance-enhancement technique. These various methods have been reported to improve muscular development; cardiorespiratory fitness; functional capacities; tendon, bone, and vascular adaptations; and physical and sport-specific performance and to reduce pain sensations. However, in emerging BFR fields, many unanswered questions remain to refine best practice.

Where Does Blood Flow Restriction Fit in the Toolbox of Athletic Development? A Narrative Review of the Proposed Mechanisms and Potential Applications

Blood flow-restricted exercise is currently used as a low-intensity time-efficient approach to reap many of the benefits of typical high-intensity training. Evidence continues to lend support to the notion that even highly trained individuals, such as athletes, still benefit from this mode of training. Both resistance and endurance exercise may be combined with blood flow restriction to provide a spectrum of adaptations in skeletal muscle, spanning from myofibrillar to mitochondrial adjustments. Such diverse adaptations would benefit both muscular strength and endurance qualities concurrently, which are demanded in athletic performance, most notably in team sports. Moreover, recent work indicates that when traditional high-load resistance training is supplemented with low-load, blood flow-restricted exercise, either in the same session or as a separate training block in a periodised programme, a synergistic and complementary effect on training adaptations may occur. Transient reductions in mechanical loading of tissues afforded by low-load, blood flow-restricted exercise may also serve a purpose during de-loading, tapering or rehabilitation of musculoskeletal injury. This narrative review aims to expand on the current scientific and practical understanding of how blood flow restriction methods may be applied by coaches and practitioners to enhance current athletic development models.

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.

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).

Can We Make Blood Flow Restriction Training More Accessible? Validity of a Low-Cost Blood Flow Restriction Device to Estimate Arterial Occlusion Pressure

ABSTRACT

Keller, M, Faude, O, Gollhofer, A, and Centner, C. Can we make blood flow restriction training more accessible? Validity of a low-cost blood flow restriction device to estimate arterial occlusion pressure. J Strength Cond Res 37(8): 1581-1587, 2023-Evidence indicates that low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) results in comparable gains in muscle mass and muscle strength as high-load resistance training without BFR. Low-load BFR training is a promising tool for areas such as rehabilitation because individuals are exposed to low mechanical stress. However, BFR training is only safe and effective when the cuff pressure is individually adjusted to the arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). Generally, thresholds for AOP are typically determined with sophisticated laboratory material, including Doppler ultrasound and tourniquet systems. Therefore, this study investigated the validity of a low-cost BFR product with automatic AOP assessment (AirBands International) compared with the gold standard for determining the individual AOP. Valid measurements were obtained at the arms and legs in 104 healthy volunteers. For the arms ( n = 49), a Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean difference of 7 ± 13 mm Hg between the 2 methods, with slightly higher pressure levels for the gold standard (131 ± 14 mm Hg) than for the low-cost device (125 ± 17 mm Hg). For the legs ( n = 55), the low-cost device reached its maximum pressure capacity in 70% of subjects during AOP identification, making the results on the legs unreliable. Although the low-cost device is a valid tool for identifying the individual AOP in the arms, the device cannot be recommended for use at the legs because of its limited pressure capacity. When using the low-cost device for BFR training at the arms, it is recommended to apply the cuff pressure to 60% of the individual AOP to meet current BFR training guidelines.

Acute Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Movement Velocity and Neuromuscular Signal during the Back Squat Exercise

The aim of this study was to verify the effects of blood flow restriction on movement velocity and muscle activity during the back squat exercise.

METHODS

Twenty-four university students participated in this study. In two randomized sessions 72 h apart, participants performed a 4-set protocol consisting of 30-15-15-15 repetitions performed at 30% of their one-repetition maximum in the back squat exercise. In both sessions, neuromuscular function was monitored by surface electromyography (EMG) and movement velocity (mean propulsive velocity (MPV), peak concentric velocity (Vmax), and the effort index (EI)). Blood flow restriction (BFR) was applied during exercise in one of the experimental sessions with 80% of full arterial occlusion pressure over lower limbs.

RESULTS

The BFR condition showed higher (p < 0.05) EI, peak, and rooted mean square normalized EMG in Set 1 compared to Set 2. Similar MPV and Vmax were observed in each set for both the BFR and control conditions. No significant differences were observed between conditions in any set.

CONCLUSIONS

BFR did not imply changes in neuromuscular performance during low-intensity resistance training, but it might induce greater intra-series velocity loss and less excitation of the muscles involved.

Effects of 4-Week Low-Load Resistance Training with Blood Flow Restriction on Muscle Strength and Left Ventricular Function in Young Swimmers: A Pilot Randomized Trial

Low-load resistance training combined with blood flow restriction (BFR) is known to result in muscle hypertrophy and strength similar to that observed with higher loads. However, the effects of resistance training with BFR on cardiac structure and cardiac function remain largely unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this randomized study was to compare the effects of conventional high-load resistance training (HL-RT) with the effects of low-load resistance training with BFR (LL-BFR) on muscle strength and left ventricular function. Sixteen young swimmers (mean ± standard deviation: age = 19.7 ± 1.6 years, body mass = 78.9 ± 9.7 kg, body height = 180.8 ± 5.8 cm) were randomly allocated to a conventional HL-RT group (n = 8) or a LL-BFR group (n = 8) with a pressure band (200 mmHg) placed on both thighs of participants for 4 weeks (3 days•week-1). Outcome measures were taken at baseline and after 4 weeks of training, and included body composition, one-repetition maximum (1RM) back squat, and echocardiography measures. The 1RM back squat significantly improved (partial eta squared (Ƞ2) = 0.365; p = 0.013) in HL-RT (mean difference (Δ) = 6.6 kg; [95% confidence interval (CI) -7.09 to 20.27]) and LL-BFR groups (Δ = 14.7 kg; [95% CI 3.39 to 26.10]), with no main effect of group or group × time interaction (p > 0.05). Interventricular septum end-systolic thickness showed a slight but statistically significant increase in LL-BFR and HL-RT groups (Ƞ2 = 0.253; p = 0.047), yet there was no main effect of group or group × time interaction (p > 0.05). There were no statistically significant changes (p > 0.05) in other cardiac structure or function parameters (e.g., left ventricular (LV) mass, LV cardiac output, LV ejection fraction, LV stroke volume) after the training programs. Results suggest that 4 weeks of HL-RT and LL-BFR improve muscle strength similarly with limited effects on left ventricular function in young swimmers.

The effects of upper body blood flow restriction training on muscles located proximal to the applied occlusive pressure: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Blood flow restriction combined with low load resistance training (LL-BFRT) is associated with increases in upper limb muscle strength and size. The effect of LL-BFRT on upper limb muscles located proximal to the BFR cuff application is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of LL-BFRT compared to low load, or high load resistance training (LL-RT, HL-RT) on musculature located proximal to cuff placement.

METHODS

Six electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers independently evaluated the risk of bias using the PEDro scale. We performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model, or calculated mean differences (fixed-effect) where appropriate. We judged the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

The systematic literature searched yielded 346 articles, of which 9 studies were eligible. The evidence for all outcomes was of very low to low certainty. Across all comparisons, a significant increase in bench press and shoulder flexion strength was found in favor of LL-BFRT compared to LL-RT, and in shoulder lean mass and pectoralis major thickness in favor of the LL-BFRT compared to LL-RT and HL-RT, respectively. No significant differences were found between LL-BFRT and HL-RT in muscle strength.

CONCLUSION

With low certainty LL-BFRT appears to be equally effective to HL-RT for improving muscle strength in upper body muscles located proximal to the BFR stimulus in healthy adults. Furthermore, LL-BFRT may induce muscle size increase, but these adaptations are not superior to LL-RT or HL-RT.

Low-Load Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction Is Effective for Managing Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (LLRT-BFR) when compared to LLRT with sham-BFR in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Forty-six patients with LET were randomly assigned to a LLRT-BFR or a LLRT with sham-BFR treatment group. All patients received soft tissue massage, supervised exercises with BFR or sham intervention (twice a week for 6 weeks), advice, and a home exercise program. The primary outcome measures were pain intensity, patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE) score, pain-free grip strength, and global rating of change, measured at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Between-group differences were evaluated using mixed-effects models with participant-specific random effects for continuous data. Global rating of change was analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Statistically significant between-group differences were found in favor of LLRT-BFR compared to LLRT with sham-BFR in pain intensity at 12-week follow-up (-1.54, 95% CI: -2.89 to -0.18; P = .026), pain-free grip strength ratio at 6-week follow-up (0.20, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.34; P = .005), and PRTEE at 6- and 12-week follow-up (-11.92, 95% CI: -20.26 to -3.59; P = .006, and -15.23, 95% CI: -23.57 to -6.9; P<.001, respectively). At 6- and 12-weeks, patients in the LLRT-BFR group had greater odds of reporting complete recovery or significant improvement (OR = 6.0, OR = 4.09, respectively). CONCLUSION: Low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction produced significantly better results compared to the LLRT with sham-BFR for all primary outcomes. Considering the clinically significant between-group improvement in function (>11 points in PRTEE) and the better success rates in the LLRT-BFR group, this intervention may improve recovery in LET. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(12):803-825. Epub: 14 September 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11211.

Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training in Tendon Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review on Intervention Parameters, Physiological Effects, and Outcomes

Objective

To identify current evidence on blood flow restriction training (BFRT) in tendon injuries and healthy tendons, evaluating physiological tendon effects, intervention parameters, and outcomes.

Methods

This scoping review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, EMBase, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane library (Controlled trials, Systematic reviews), and five trial registries. Two independent reviewers screened studies at title/abstract and full text. Following screening, data was extracted and charted, and presented as figures and tables alongside a narrative synthesis. Any study design conducted on adults, investigating the effects of BFRT on healthy tendons or tendon pathology were included. Data were extracted on physiological tendon effects, intervention parameters and outcomes with BFRT.

Results

Thirteen studies were included, three on tendinopathy, two on tendon ruptures, and eight on healthy Achilles, patellar, and supraspinatus tendons. A variety of outcomes were assessed, including pain, function, strength, and tendon morphological and mechanical properties, particularly changes in tendon thickness. BFRT intervention parameters were heterogeneously prescribed.

Conclusion

Despite a dearth of studies to date on the effects of BFRT on healthy tendons and in tendon pathologies, preliminary evidence for beneficial effects of BFRT on tendons and clinical outcomes is encouraging. As BFRT is a relatively novel method, definitive conclusions, and recommendations on BFRT in tendon rehabilitation cannot be made at present, which should be addressed in future research, due to the potential therapeutic benefits highlighted in this review.