Progression of Blood Flow Restricted Resistance Training in Older Adults at Risk of Mobility Limitations

Comparison of blood flow restriction training and conventional resistance training for the improvement of sarcopenia in the older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Age-related sarcopenia places a tremendous burden on healthcare providers and patients' families. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training may be a promising treatment to bring sarcopenia down, and it offers numerous advantages over traditional resistance training. The purpose of this review was to compare the effects of BFR training and conventional resistance training on clinically delayed sarcopenia in the elderly. Databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Science Direct were searched to identify eligible studies; blinded data extraction was performed to assess study quality, and conflicts were submitted to third parties. Someone made the decision. One author used Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 and compared it with data obtained by another author for this purpose. A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. The funnel plots of the studies did not show any substantial publication bias. Low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) had no significant effect on muscle mass compared with high-load resistance training (HL-RT) (p ​= ​0.74, SMD ​= ​0.07, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0. 46) and LL-BFR had a significant effect on muscle strength compared with HL-RT (p ​= ​0.03, Z ​= ​2.16, SMD ​= ​-0.34, 95% CI: 0.65 to -0.03). LL-BFR showed a slight effect on mass compared to LL-RT (p ​= ​0.26, SMD ​= ​0.25, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.69). Sensitivity analysis produced a nonsignificant change, suggesting that the results of this study are reasonable. In conclusion, the data suggest the possibility that BFR training improves age-related sarcopenia.

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.

Potential considerations with estimating blood flow restriction pressure in the lower body using a narrower cuff

Blood flow restriction pressures are typically set as a percentage of the arterial occlusion pressure. For those who do not have the ability to measure the arterial occlusion pressure, estimation equations are available. However, notable considerations are needed when estimating pressure with a narrow cuff (5 cm) in the lower body. A previously published equation in this journal was developed but was created only using 55% of the sample because the arterial occlusion of the others could not be obtained within the manufacturer's pressure limit. The purpose of this article was twofold: (1) to investigate how previous studies have implemented the equation and (2) to highlight potential concerns of using this equation. Two databases were used to locate articles that used the equation from Loenneke et al. (2015). We found that this equation had been cited 10 times to estimate arterial occlusion pressure with some notable concerns. Some did not use a 5 cm wide cuff, while others used it for participants who had arterial occlusion pressures exceeding 300 mmHg. To highlight the latter, we also applied the Loenneke et al. (2015) lower body equation to participants with arterial occlusion pressures known to exceed 300 mmHg to demonstrate potential concerns. This retrospective analysis found that 52% of the sample with known pressures over 300 mmHg (40 out of 77) would be estimated below 300 mmHg. This paper highlighted important considerations for those trying to estimate arterial occlusion pressure in the lower body with a narrow cuff (5 cm).

The Effect of Low Intensity Resistance Training with Blood Flow Restriction on Fall Resistance in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the effect of low intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction on fall resistance in middle-aged and older adults.

METHODS

PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO host, CNKI Database, VIP, Wanfang Database and CBMdisc were searched, and the retrieval period was from the beginning of each database to 25 July 2022. Randomized controlled trials were collected concerning the intervention of low intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction on lower limb muscle strength, muscle mass, muscle function, balance, walking and other fall resistance indicators in middle-aged and older adults. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used for methodological quality assessment of the included literature. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software and Stata 15.1.

RESULTS

A total of 14 randomized controlled trials (419 participants in total) were included in the study. Meta-analysis results revealed that low intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction significantly improved lower limb muscle strength (SMD = 0.51, 95%CI: [0.28, 0.74], p < 0.0001), lower limb muscle mass (MD = 1.99, 95%CI: [0.77, 3.22], p = 0.001) and walking ability (SMD = -0.89, 95% CI. [-1.71, -0.06], p = 0.03), while there was no apparent intervention effect on lower limb muscle function (SMD = 0.25, 95%CI: [-0.23, 0.73], p = 0.31) and balance (SMD = 0.22, 95%CI: [-0.08, 0.52], p = 0.15). The results of subgroup analysis showed that the intervention effect of low intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction on lower limb muscle strength was more significant in subjects aged 55-64 years, with exercise cycles of 4-8 weeks, exercise frequency of three times per week, exercise intensity of 20-30% 1RM, and vascular flow blocking pressure ≥ 120 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

Low intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction can effectively improve lower limb muscle strength, muscle mass and walking ability in middle-aged and older adults, and can serve as an important form of fall resistance training for the older adults.

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.

Effects of Low-Load Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy Compared with Traditional Resistance Training in Healthy Adults Older Than 60 Years: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

There is clinical interest in determining the effects of low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy compared with traditional high- and low-load (HL and LL) resistance training in healthy older adults and the influence of LL-BFR training cuff-pressure on these outcomes.

METHODS

A search was performed on the MEDLINE, PEDro, CINHAL, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases.

RESULTS

The analysis included 14 studies. HL resistance training produces a small increase in muscle strength (eight studies; SMD, -0.23 [-0.41; -0.05]) but not in muscle hypertrophy (six studies; (SMD, 0.08 [-0.22; 0.38]) when compared with LL-BFR resistance training. Compared with traditional LL resistance training, LL-BFR resistance training produces small-moderate increases in muscle strength (seven studies; SMD, 0.44 [0.28; 0.60]) and hypertrophy (two studies; SMD, 0.51 [0.06; 0.96]). There were greater improvements in muscle strength when higher cuff pressures were applied versus traditional LL resistance training but not versus HL resistance training.

CONCLUSIONS

LL-BFR resistance training results in lower muscle strength gains than HL resistance training and greater than traditional LL resistance training in healthy adults older than 60 years. LL-BFR resistance training promotes a similar muscle hypertrophy to HL resistance training but is greater than that of traditional LL resistance training. Applying cuff pressures above the limb occlusion pressure could enhance the increases in muscle strength compared with traditional LL resistance training.

Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Combined with Low-Intensity Resistance Training on Lower-Limb Muscle Strength and Mass in Post-Middle-Aged Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We studied the effect of blood flow restriction (BFR) combined with low-intensity resistance training (LIRT) on lower-limb muscle strength and mass in post-middle-aged adults. The PubMed, OVID, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were used to obtain randomized controlled trials, and the effects of BFR and LIRT (BFRt) on muscle strength and mass in adults were examined. The Cochrane risk of bias tool assessed bias in the included trials. The combined effects of BFR and LIRT (BFRt) were calculated by meta-analysis, the association between muscle strength/mass and interventions was determined by meta-regression, and beneficial variables of intervention were explored by subgroup analysis. A total of 11 articles were included in the meta-analysis. The combined effects showed that BFRt significantly improved lower extremity muscle strength but not muscle mass gain. Meta-regression analysis indicated that the effect of BFRt on changes in muscle strength was correlated with frequency of the intervention. Subgroup analysis revealed that BFRt achieved greater muscle strength gains than normal activity, LIRT, and similar muscle strength gains compared to high-intensity resistance training. The increased muscle strength after BFRt was noticed with a frequency of three times a week, but not with a frequency of two times a week, and the difference between these subgroups was statistically significant. Our findings indicate that BFRt can increase lower-limb muscle strength in post-middle-aged adults. Frequency of intervention is a key variable; particularly, a schedule of three times a week is effective in improving muscle strength.

Resistance Training with Blood Flow Restriction Compared to Traditional Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Mass in Non-Active Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Low-intensity training with blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) has been suggested as an alternative to high-intensity resistance training for the improvement of strength and muscle mass, becoming advisable for individuals who cannot assume such a load. The systematic review aimed to determine the effectiveness of the LI-BFR compared to dynamic high-intensity resistance training on strength and muscle mass in non-active older adults. A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and reportedly followed the PRISMA statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus databases were searched between September and October 2020. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Twelve studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Meta-analysis pointed out significant differences in maximal voluntary contraction (MVC): SMD 0.61, 95% CI [0.10, 1.11], p = 0.02, I² 71% p < 0.0001; but not in the repetition maximum (RM): SMD 0.07, 95% CI [−0.25, 0.40], p = 0.66, I² 0% p < 0.53; neither in the muscle mass: SMD 0.62, 95% CI [−0.09, 1.34], p = 0.09, I² 59% p = 0.05. Despite important limitations such as scarce literature regarding LI-BFR in older adults, the small sample size in most studies, the still differences in methodology and poor quality in many of them, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a positive benefit in non-active older adults. LI- BFR may induce increased muscular strength and muscle mass, at least at a similar extent to that in the traditional high-intensity resistance training.

Low-load blood flow restriction training induces similar morphological and mechanical Achilles tendon adaptations compared with high-load resistance training

Low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) training has gained increasing interest in the scientific community by demonstrating that increases in muscle mass and strength are comparable to conventional high-load (HL) resistance training. Although adaptations on the muscular level are well documented, there is little evidence on how LL-BFR training affects human myotendinous properties. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate morphological and mechanical Achilles tendon adaptations after 14 wk of strength training. Fifty-five male volunteers (27.9 ± 5.1 yr) were randomly allocated into the following three groups: LL-BFR [20-35% of one-repetition maximum (1RM)], HL (70-85% 1RM), or a nonexercising control (CON) group. The LL-BFR and HL groups completed a resistance training program for 14 wk, and tendon morphology, mechanical as well as material properties, and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and isometric strength were assessed before and after the intervention. Both HL (+40.7%) and LL-BFR (+36.1%) training induced significant increases in tendon stiffness (P < 0.05) as well as tendon CSA (HL: +4.6%, LL-BFR: +7.8%, P < 0.001). These changes were comparable between groups without significant changes in Young's modulus. Furthermore, gastrocnemius medialis muscle CSA and plantar flexor strength significantly increased in both training groups (P < 0.05), whereas the CON group did not show significant changes in any of the evaluated parameters. In conclusion, the adaptive change in Achilles tendon properties following low-load resistance training with partial vascular occlusion appears comparable to that evoked by high-load resistance training.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) training has been shown to induce beneficial adaptations at the muscular level. However, studies examining the effects on human tendon properties are rare. The findings provide first evidence that LL-BFR can increase Achilles tendon mechanical and morphological properties to a similar extent as conventional high-load resistance training. This is of particular importance for individuals who may not tolerate heavy training loads but still aim for improvements in myotendinous function.