Dataset Information

Low-Load Blood-Flow Restriction Exercise to Failure and Nonfailure and Myoelectric Activity: A Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the short- and long-term effects of low-load resistance training with blood-flow restriction (LL-BFR) versus low- (LL-RT) or high- (HL-RT) load resistance training with free blood flow on myoelectric activity and investigate the differences between failure (exercise performed to volitional failure) and nonfailure (exercise not performed to volitional failure) protocols.

Data sources

We identified sources by searching the MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and PEDro electronic databases.

Study selection

We screened the titles and abstracts of 1048 articles using our inclusion criteria. A total of 39 articles were selected for further analysis.

Data extraction

Two reviewers independently assessed the methodologic quality of each study and extracted the data. A meta-analytic approach was used to compute standardized mean differences (SMDs) ± 95% CIs. Subgroup analyses were conducted for both failure and nonfailure protocols.

Data synthesis

The search identified 39 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Regarding the short-term effects, LL-BFR increased muscle excitability compared with LL-RT during nonfailure protocols (SMD = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.34, 0.88), whereas HL-RT increased muscle excitability compared with LL-BFR during failure (SMD = -0.61; 95% CI = -1.01, -0.21) and nonfailure (SMD = -1.13; 95% CI = -1.94, -0.33) protocols. Concerning the long-term effects, LL-BFR increased muscle excitability compared with LL-RT during exercises performed to failure (SMD = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.39, 1.79).

Conclusions

Greater short-term muscle excitability levels were observed in LL-BFR than in LL-RT during nonfailure protocols. Conversely, greater muscle excitability was present during HL-RT than LL-BFR, regardless of volitional failure. Furthermore, LL-BFR performed to failure increased muscle excitability in the long term compared with LL-RT.

SUBMITTER: Cerqueira MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9020604 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Low-Load Blood-Flow Restriction Exercise to Failure and Nonfailure and Myoelectric Activity: A Meta-Analysis.

Cerqueira Mikhail Santos MS Maciel Daniel Germano DG Barboza Jean Artur Mendonça JAM Centner Christoph C Lira Maria M Pereira Rafael R De Brito Vieira Wouber Hérickson WH

Journal of athletic training 20220401 4

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the short- and long-term effects of low-load resistance training with blood-flow restriction (LL-BFR) versus low- (LL-RT) or high- (HL-RT) load resistance training with free blood flow on myoelectric activity and investigate the differences between failure (exercise performed to volitional failure) and nonfailure (exercise not performed to volitional failure) protocols.<h4>Data sources</h4>We identified sources by searching the MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science ...[more]

PMID: 34038945

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Low-load resistance exercise (LL-RE) with blood flow restriction (BFR) promotes increased metabolic response and fatigue, as well as more pronounced myoelectric activity than traditional LL-RE. Some studies have shown that the relative pressure applied during exercise may have an effect on these variables, but existing evidence is contradictory. Purpose: The aim of this study was to systematically review and pool the available evidence on the differences in neuromuscular and metabolic responses at LL-RE with different pressure of BFR. Methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis was reported according to PRISMA items. Searches were performed in the following databases: CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science, until June 15, 2021. Randomized or non-randomized experimental studies that analyzed LL-RE, associated with at least two relative BFR pressures [arterial occlusion pressure (AOP)%], on myoelectric activity, fatigue, or metabolic responses were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for MVC torque (fatigue measure) and myoelectric activity. The quality of evidence was assessed using the PEDro scale. Results: Ten studies were included, all of moderate to high methodological quality. For MVC torque, there were no differences in the comparisons between exercise with 40-50% vs. 80-90% AOP. When analyzing the meta-analysis data, the results indicated differences in comparisons in exercise with 15-20% 1 repetition maximum (1RM), with higher restriction pressure evoking greater MVC torque decline (4 interventions, 73 participants; MD = -5.05 Nm [95%CI = -8.09; -2.01], p = 0.001, I 2 = 0%). For myoelectric activity, meta-analyses indicated a difference between exercise with 40% vs. 60% AOP (3 interventions, 38 participants; SMD = 0.47 [95%CI = 0.02; 0.93], p = 0.04, I2 = 0%), with higher pressure of restriction causing greater myoelectric activity. This result was not identified in the comparisons between 40% vs. 80% AOP. In analysis of studies that adopted pre-defined repetition schemes, differences were found (4 interventions, 52 participants; SMD = 0.58 [95%CI = 0.11; 1.05], p = 0.02, I 2 = 27%). Conclusion: The BFR pressure applied during the LL-RE may affect the magnitude of muscle fatigue and excitability when loads between 15 and 20% of 1RM and predefined repetition protocols (not failure) are prescribed, respectively. Systematic Review Registration: [http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42021229345].

Project description:Purpose: Blood-Flow-Restriction (BFR) training provides the ability to achieve hypertrophy effects even though only light mechanical loads are applied. However, its impact on venous pressures and function are still unknown. Therefore, the present study investigates the influence of BFR-training on intravascular venous pressure and venous function in comparison to control exercises with low or high mechanical loads. Methods: In a randomized cross-over design, ten healthy men (27.6 ± 6.4 years) underwent three trials of unilateral knee-extensor exercise with three different training protocols, low-load- (LL-RT, 30% of the individual 1-repetition-maximum, 1RM), low-load BFR- (LL-BFR-RT, 30% 1RM, 50% limb occlusion pressure, LOP) and high-load resistance exercise (HL-RT, 75% 1RM). Exercise protocols contain about four sets of knee extension exercise (Range-of-Motion: 0-0-95°), separated by 60 s of rest. Each set was performed until volitional muscle failure. For analysis of changes in intravascular venous pressures and venous function, a venous catheter was placed at the exercising leg before each trial. Whereas venous pressures were recorded throughout the exercise trials, phlebodynamometric investigations were performed before and after each trial. Furthermore, subjective pain perception during and after exercise was accessed by visual analogue scale. One-way ANOVA was used to assess mean differences between training protocols, while two-way repeated-measures ANOVA (rANOVA; time x condition) was performed to compare changes in measures over time among conditions. Data were given as means ± standard deviation (SD). Results: In comparison to the exercise trials without venous occlusion, total workload was significantly lower in the LL-BFR-RT (LL-RT: 1745 ± 604 kg vs LL-BFR-RT: 1274 ± 237 kg vs HL-RT: 1847 ± 367 kg, p = 0.004) without indicating statistical differences in venous pressures during the exercise sets (interaction: p = 0.140) or pain perception (interaction: p = 0.574). Similarly, phlebodynamometric assessment of venous function (e.g. refill-time of the venous system pre-vs. post exercise trials-LL-RT: 29.7 ± 11.0 s vs 25.5 ± 9.6 s, LL-BFR-RT: 26.6 ± 13.0 s vs 27.3 ± 13.8 s, HL-RT: 25.9 ± 10.9 s vs 23.1 ± 8.2 s) revealed no time (p = 0.156), condition effect (p = 0.802) or their interactions (p = 0.382). Conclusion: The present study is the first one describing the acute effects of LL-BFR-RT to muscle failure on venous pressures and function in comparison to a LL- and HL-RT in the lower limbs. In contrast to the existing literature, LL-BFR-RT does not elevate the venous pressures during exercise higher than a comparative exercise without BFR and does not show any adverse effects on venous function after the exercise.

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:IntroductionSarcopenic obesity (SO) is characterised by decreased muscle mass, diminished muscle strength and/or reduced physical performance and a high percentage of body fat (PBF). Conventional-load resistance exercise (CRE) may be difficult for older people with SO owing to their declining physical functions. Low-load resistance exercise (LRE) combined with blood flow restriction (BFR; LRE-BFR) is a viable alternative to CRE for improving muscle mass and strength and potential exercise mode for managing SO. This study has two objectives: (1) to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of CRE and LRE-BFR in improving body composition, muscle strength, physical performance, haematological parameters, cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors and quality of life and (2) to compare the efficacy of CRE and LRE-BFR and explore their potential mechanisms.Methods and analysisThis work is a 12-week assessor-blinded randomised clinical trial that will be conducted thrice a week. Sarcopenia will be defined using the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019, and obesity will be determined using the criteria developed by the World Health Organization. Community-dwelling older people aged ≥ 65 years will be screened as the participants using inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 33 participants will be randomised into a CRE group (n = 11), an LRE-BFR group (n = 11) and a control group that will be given only health education (n = 11). The primary outcomes will be knee extensor strength and PBF, and the secondary outcomes will be body composition, anthropometric measurements, muscle strength of upper limbs, physical performance, haematological parameters, CVD risk factors and quality of life. The outcomes will be measured at the baseline (week 0), end of the intervention (week 12) and follow up (week 24). All the collected data will be analysed following the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and disseminationThe Ethics Research Committee has approved this study (approval No. CMEC-2022-KT-51). Changes or developments in this study will be reported at www.chictr.org.cn .Trial registrationChiCTR2300067296 (3 January 2023).

Dataset Information

Low-Load Blood-Flow Restriction Exercise to Failure and Nonfailure and Myoelectric Activity: A Meta-Analysis.

Objective

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction

Data synthesis

Conclusions

Publications

Low-Load Blood-Flow Restriction Exercise to Failure and Nonfailure and Myoelectric Activity: A Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets