Why the study?
Blood flow restriction has gained interest for exercise, but its effects on soccer-related performance outcomes and injury indicators compared with traditional high-intensity training remained to be investigated in amateur athletes.
Does low-load blood flow restriction training improve muscle strength, endurance, and performance outcomes in amateur male soccer players compared to traditional high-intensity training?
Does low-load blood flow restriction training improve muscle strength, endurance, and performance outcomes in amateur male soccer players compared to traditional high-intensity training?
Low-load blood flow restriction training is a feasible and load-efficient approach to improve performance parameters and hypertrophy in amateur soccer players compared to traditional high-intensity training.
Supports low-load BFR as a load-efficient alternative for hypertrophy in soccer players; extends evidence to amateur athletic populations.
BACKGROUND: Blood flow restriction (BFR) has gained interest in its application in exercise and potential benefits. This study aimed to investigate the effects of low-load, low-frequency BFR training compared with traditional high-intensity training on soccer-related performance outcomes and injury indicators in amateur athletes. METHODS: Twenty licensed male soccer players competing in a university-level league were randomized to either a BFR group (n = 10, 22.3 ± 1.3 years) or a control group (n = 10, 22.1 ± 1.8 years) for 6 weeks of training. Pre- and post-intervention assessments included muscle strength-endurance (isokinetic dynamometer), power (vertical jump test), aerobic endurance (Yo-Yo level 1 test), speed-agility (T test, Y-shaped reactive agility test), dynamic balance (Y test), thigh circumference, fatigue (blood lactate, Borg scale), and sportive self-confidence. Perceived change (GROC) was assessed post-intervention. Injury data were tracked for six months following the intervention. RESULTS: = 0.24) and GROC scores (p = 0.022) were significantly higher in the BFR group than in the control group. No differences were observed in terms of fatigue. The standard error of the mean values for significant within-group changes ranged from 0.03 to 8.64. Although the injury rate was lower in the BFR group, this trend was not significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: BFR appears to be a feasible, load-efficient, and well-tolerated approach to improve performance parameters in amateur soccer players, with potential benefits for lower-limb injury prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prior to participant enrollment, this study was prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05452109 first submitted on June 1, 2022).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaya et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: