Key result
Low-load blood flow restriction combined with variable resistance training improved back-squat 1RM by 13.93%, showing no significant difference compared to high-load variable resistance training.
Why the study?
The study was designed to compare the effects of low-load blood flow restriction combined with chain-based variable resistance training versus high-load chain-based variable resistance training on lower-limb performance in male college basketball players.
Does low-load blood flow restriction combined with variable resistance training improve lower limb strength and explosiveness in male college basketball players?
RCT (n=27)
Assessor-blinded
Randomly assigned
No
Does low-load blood flow restriction combined with variable resistance training improve lower limb strength and explosiveness in male college basketball players?
Effect estimate: ES 0.13 (95% CI -1.03, 1.30)
Absolute Event Rate: 146.11% vs 141.67%
p-value: p=1.00
Low-load blood flow restriction combined with variable resistance training provides similar lower-limb performance improvements as high-load variable resistance training in male collegiate basketball players.
Low-load BFR training yields equivalent squat strength gains to high-load methods in athletes; confirms comparable efficacy in this RCT.
This study compared the effects of an 8-week program of low-load blood flow restriction training combined with chain-based variable resistance training (BFR-VRT) and high-load chain-based variable resistance training (VRT) on lower-limb performance in male college basketball players. A total of 27 players were randomly assigned to the BFR-VRT group (n = 9), the variable resistance training group (n = 9), or a control group (n = 9). The BFR-VRT protocol used pneumatic cuffs applied to the proximal thighs, with training pressure set at 180 mmHg, and combined a 10% 1RM barbell load with 10%-30% 1RM from chains, whereas the VRT protocol consisted of a 55% 1RM barbell load plus 10%-30% 1RM from chains. The control group did not receive any resistance training. Repeated-measures Repeated-measures ANOVA showed significant within-group improvements in SQ-1RM, LTC, RTC, countermovement jump, squat jump, DJ-RSI, standing long jump, and 30-m in both the BFR-VRT and VRT groups (all p < 0.05), whereas the CON group showed no significant change (p > 0.05). Between-group comparisons indicated no significant differences among the three groups on these outcomes (all p > 0.05). In conclusion, both BFR-VRT and VRT improved lower-limb performance; under a lower external load, BFR-VRT showed effects comparable to, or trending greater than, VRT on certain performance measures. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojEN.html?proj=201896, identifier ChiCTR2400086132.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peng et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Healthy male college basketball players (n=27). Low-load blood flow restriction combined with variable resistance training (BFR-VRT) vs. High-load variable resistance training (VRT) and no resistance training (CON) was evaluated on Back-squat one-repetition maximum (SQ-1RM) (ES 0.13, 95% CI -1.03, 1.30, p=1.00). Low-load blood flow restriction combined with variable resistance training improved back-squat 1RM by 13.93%, showing no significant difference compared to high-load variable resistance training.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: