Project description:Strength training responses are influenced by sets, repetitions, and mechanical load, whereas Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) training adds the variable of temporarily restricting blood flow via a tourniquet. This has intensified scientific discussions regarding the vascular responses and thereby safety of the BFR method. To address these concerns, we investigated intravascular pressure changes during low-load (LL-RT), low-load with BFR (LL-BFR-RT), and high-load (HL-RT) exercise. Ten healthy men (26.8 ± 4.59 years) performed unilateral biceps curls to failure in a randomized cross-over design: (1) LL-RT (30% 1RM), (2) LL-BFR-RT (30% 1RM, 50% LOP), and (3) HL-RT (75% 1RM). Total workload was significantly higher in LL-RT (692 ± 251 kg) compared to LL-BFR-RT (378 ± 58.7 kg) and HL-RT (327 ± 65.1 kg, p < 0.001). In terms of mean values, LL-BFR-RT resulted in higher diastolic and mean arterial pressures during rest periods between sets compared to other conditions (p ≤ 0.02). Both LL-RT and LL-BFR-RT led to longer durations spent at increased diastolic (above 90 mmHg, LL-RT: ~419 s vs. LL-BFR-RT: ~356 s vs. Hl-RT: ~122 s), systolic (above 140 mmHg, LL-RT: ~437 s vs. LL-BFR-RT: ~336 s vs. HL-RT: ~199 s), and mean arterial pressures (above 107 mmHg, LL-RT: ~451 s vs. LL-BFR-RT: ~384 s vs. HL-RT: ~168 s) compared to HL-RT (p ≤ 0.028). Relative to total exercise time, LL-BFR-RT resulted in higher proportion of time spent at elevated diastolic (above 90 mmHg, LL-RT: ~56.5% vs. LL-BFR-RT: ~68.7% vs. Hl-RT: ~33.5%) and mean arterial pressures (above 107 mmHg, LL-RT: ~60.8% vs. LL-BFR-RT: ~74.0% vs. HL-RT: ~45.7%) compared to HL-RT (p ≤ 0.034). Peripheral venous pressure was significantly higher in LL-BFR-RT compared to other conditions (p < 0.001), with both absolute and relative time spent at higher pressures (above 75 mmHg, LL-RT: ~57.0 s and ~ 9.12% vs. LL-BFR-RT: ~424 s and ~ 81.7% vs. HL-RT: ~36.0 s and ~ 8.99%, p ≤ 0.002). Our results suggest that BFR training performed to failure imposes greater arterial and venous stress in the exercising limb compared to high-load training without BFR, particularly due to prolonged exposure to elevated pressures. Further research is needed to assess the potential risks of elevated local arterial and venous pressure responses by frequent BFR use, particularly in populations with pre-existing medical conditions.

Project description:BackgroundThe combination of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) has recently been shown to promote muscular adaptations in various populations. To date, however, evidence is sparse on how this training regimen influences muscle mass and strength in older adults.PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantitatively identify the effects of low-load BFR (LL-BFR) training on muscle mass and strength in older individuals in comparison with conventional resistance training programmes. Additionally, the effectiveness of walking with and without BFR was assessed.MethodsA PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. The systematic literature research was performed in the following electronic databases from inception to 1 June 2018: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and CENTRAL. Subsequently, a random-effects meta-analysis with inverse variance weighting was conducted.ResultsA total of 2658 articles were screened, and 11 studies with a total population of N = 238 were included in the meta-analysis. Our results revealed that during both low-load training and walking, the addition of BFR elicits significantly greater improvements in muscular strength with pooled effect sizes (ES) of 2.16 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.70) and 3.09 (95% CI 2.04 to 4.14), respectively. Muscle mass was also increased when comparing walking with and without BFR [ES 1.82 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.32)]. In comparison with high-load training, LL-BFR promotes similar muscle hypertrophy [ES 0.21 (95% CI - 0.14 to 0.56)] but lower strength gains [ES - 0.42 (95% CI - 0.70 to - 0.14)].ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis reveals that LL-BFR and walking with BFR is an effective interventional approach to stimulate muscle hypertrophy and strength gains in older populations. As BFR literature is still scarce with regard to potential moderator variables (e.g. sex, cuff pressure or training volume/frequency), further research is needed for strengthening the evidence for an effective application of LL-BFR training in older people.

Project description: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).

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of lower limb low-load blood flow restriction training (LL-BFRT) with high-load strength training (HL-ST) as part of an outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programme on leg strength in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).MethodsParticipants were randomised to LL-BFRT or HL-ST (24 sessions). LL-BFRT was done at 30% 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) with 70% arterial occlusion pressure. HL-ST was done at 70% 1-RM. Primary outcome was isometric strength of knee extensors and flexors. Secondary outcomes were 1-RM, functional exercise capacity, physical activity, symptom burden and health-related quality of life. Perceptions of dyspnoea and leg fatigue were recorded after every exercise. We compared groups with t-tests.ResultsWe included 30 participants (13 women, 17 men, 64 (9) years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s 47 (18)% pred.), 24 completed the study. Isometric knee extensor strength improved to a clinically relevant degree in both legs in both groups (LL-BFRT: right leg 9 (20) Nm, left leg 10 (18) Nm; HL-ST: right leg 15 (26) Nm, left leg 16 (30) Nm, data are mean (SD)), without statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group differences (right leg mean difference= -6.4, 95% CI= -13.20 to 25.92 Nm, left leg mean difference= -5.6, 95% CI= -15.44 to 26.55 Nm). 1 min sit-to-stand test performance improved to a clinically relevant degree only in the LL-BFRT group (4 (4) vs 1 (5) repetitions). Interestingly, physical activity improved to a clinically relevant degree only in the LL-BFRT group (1506 (2441) vs -182 (1971) steps/day). LL-BFRT lowered perceived in-exercise dyspnoea and increased leg fatigue compared with HL-ST in the initial 12 trainings.ConclusionIn patients with stable COPD undergoing outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation, LL-BFRT was not superior to HL-ST in improving leg strength. LL-BFRT led to similar strength gains as HL-ST while reducing perceptions of dyspnoea in the initial training phase.Trial registration numberNCT04151771.

Project description:Strength training is recommended by the American Physical Therapy Association to improve muscle strength, mobility, and balance following knee replacement. Few studies have focused on the direct effects of strength training on functional ambulation, and potential dose-response relationships between strength training parameters and the effect remain unclear. The aim of this systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression was to evaluate the effects of strength training on functional ambulation following knee replacement (KR). We also aimed to explore potential dose-response relationships between strength training parameters and performance in functional ambulation. A systematic literature search of eight online databases was performed on March 12, 2023, for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of strength training on functional ambulation by six-minute walk test (6MWT) or timed-up and go test (TUG) after KR. Data were pooled by random-effect meta-analyses and presented as weighted mean difference (WMD). A random-effect meta-regression was performed for four predetermined training parameters, namely, duration (weeks), frequency (sessions per week), volume (time per session), and initial time (after surgery) separately to explore dose-response relationships with WMD. Fourteen trials encompassing 956 participants were included in our study. Meta-analyses showed an improvement in 6MWT performance after strength training (WMD: 32.15, 95% CI 19.44-44.85) and a decrease in time to complete TUG (WMD: - 1.92, 95% CI - 3.43 to - 0.41). Meta-regression revealed a dose-response relationship only between volume and 6MWT, with a decreasing trend (P = 0.019, 95% CI - 1.63 to - 0.20). Increasing trends of improvement in 6MWT and TUG were observed with increasing training duration and frequency. A slight decreasing trend of improvement was observed in 6MWT with postponed initial time, while an opposite trend was observed in TUG. Based on existing studies, moderate-certainty evidence suggests that strength training could increase 6MWT distance, and low-certainty evidence shows that strength training could decrease the time to complete TUG after KR. Meta-regression results only suggested a dose-response relationship between volume and 6MWT with a decreasing trend.Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42022329006.

Project description:BackgroundPatients affected by hepatic cirrhosis show reductions in muscle mass and function, with poor quality of life and functional performance. As such, resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR-RT) could be a useful therapeutic tool for health promotion. Thus, we aim to verify the effects of this intervention on muscle strength, muscle mass, fiber Pennation angle, fascicle length, functional performance, quality of life, and fall risk scores in this population.MethodsThirty participants will be randomly distributed between 1) BFR-RT and 2) control (CTRL). Assessments will occur at three time points: before the training intervention (0 W), after 12 weeks (12 W), and at follow-up (24 W). The following variables will be assessed: Child-Pugh classification; MELD score; SF-36 questionnaire; fatigue severity index; 6-min walk test; timed-up and go; 30-s sitting and rising test; dietary record; one-repetition maximum (1-RM) strength test (knee extension exercise); and vastus lateralis' cross-sectional area, Pennation angle, and fascicle length. The BFR-RT group will undergo 12 weeks of knee extension exercise (1 × 30 repetitions and 3 × 15 repetitions at 20% 1-RM and 50% of total blood flow occlusion pressure), with two sessions per week. Data normality will be assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. In case of normal distribution, a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance will be implemented to test for differences in baseline values. A mixed model then will be applied for each dependent variable. In case of non-normal data distribution, a Kruskal-Wallis test will be implemented to test for differences in baseline values. Next, the Friedman test will be used to analyze repeated measures. Within- and between-group effect sizes will be calculated using Cohen's d for each outcome. Finally, the minimal clinically important difference will be analyzed with distribution-based methods.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this will be the first trial to investigate BFR-RT in patients with cirrhosis and evaluate the effects on neuromuscular parameters, functional performance, disease severity, and quality of life outcomes.Trial registrationBrazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBec): RBR-395mfw. Registered on 25 August 2018.

Dataset Information

Blood flow restriction combined with resistance training on muscle strength and thickness improvement in young adults: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets