The effect of blood flow restriction combined with different resistance training on the improvement of athletic performance in male tactical personnel

Purpose This study aimed to compare the effects of resistance training programs combining different load intensities with blood flow restriction (BFR), alongside a traditional high-load resistance training condition, on athletic performance in male tactical personnel. Methods Sixty healthy male tactical personnel with systematic resistance training experience were randomly assigned to four groups (n=15 each): HL-BFR group (70% one repetition maximum 1RM with BFR), ML-BFR group (50% 1RM with BFR), LL-BFR group (30% 1RM with BFR), and HL-CON group (70% 1RM without BFR), except for load intensity and BFR application. Notably, non-BFR control conditions were only included for the 70% 1RM group. All groups received an 8-week intervention with 3 training sessions per week, and consistent training variables except for load intensity and BFR application. Before and after the 8-week intervention, assessments were conducted for muscle strength (1RM of biceps curl, bench press, deadlift, squat), explosive power (countermovement jump, CMJ), athletic performance (pull-ups, biceps curl, zigzag run, standing long jump, medicine ball throw, 30-meter sprint), body composition (body mass, body fat percentage, lean mass), and serum hormonal levels (testosterone, cortisol, growth hormone GH). Heart rate and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were monitored during training to evaluate training load. Results Significant group × time interactions were observed for pull-ups, parallel bar dips, standing long jump, medicine ball throw, and 30-m sprint performance (all p 0.05). Overall, the HL-BFR and ML-BFR groups demonstrated greater improvements than the LL-BFR group across several strength- and power-related outcomes, whereas differences between HL-BFR, ML-BFR, and HL-CON were generally small and inconsistent. CMJ performance improved over time in all groups without significant between-group differences. No significant interaction effect was identified for zigzag run performance. Resting hormonal concentrations and body mass remained unchanged across groups (all p 0.05). Small increases in segmental lean mass were observed in the HL-BFR and ML-BFR groups; however, these changes should be interpreted cautiously due to the limited magnitude of change and the measurement variability associated with bioelectrical impedance analysis. RPE and heart rate decreased over time during the intervention period (all p 0.001), with no consistent between-group differences. Conclusions Under the specific training conditions employed in this study, resistance training combined with ML−BFR and HL−BFR generally produced greater improvements in athletic performance outcomes than LL−BFR. However, high-load BFR did not consistently outperform traditional high-load resistance training without BFR. These findings should therefore be interpreted as differences among specific load–BFR combinations rather than the isolated effect of BFR itself. Moderate-load BFR may represent a practical strategy for improving performance while reducing mechanical loading demands, although caution is warranted when generalizing beyond the present protocol.