Why the study?
Does concurrent training with blood flow restriction improve aerobic fitness, muscle mass, and muscle strength similarly to traditional concurrent training in healthy older adults?
Does concurrent training with blood flow restriction improve aerobic fitness, muscle mass, and muscle strength similarly to traditional concurrent training in healthy older adults?
Low-load concurrent training with blood flow restriction promotes similar neuromuscular and cardiorespiratory adaptations as traditional high-load concurrent training in older adults.
Supports low-load BFR-CT as alternative for older adults intolerant to high loads; extends evidence to concurrent training protocols.
The aim of this present study was to investigate on the effects of concurrent training with blood flow restriction (BFR-CT) and concurrent training (CT) on the aerobic fitness, muscle mass and muscle strength in a cohort of older individuals. 25 healthy older adults (64.7±4.1 years; 69.33±10.8 kg; 1.6±0.1 m) were randomly assigned to experimental groups: CT (n=8, endurance training (ET), 2 days/week for 30-40 min, 50-80% VO(2peak) and RT, 2 days/week, leg press with 4 sets of 10 reps at 70-80% of 1-RM with 60 s rest), BFR-CT (n=10, ET, similar to CT, but resistance training with blood flow restriction: 2 days/week, leg press with 1 set of 30 and 3 sets of 15 reps at 20-30% 1-RM with 60 s rest) or control group (n=7). Quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSAq), 1-RM and VO(2peak) were assessed pre- and post-examination (12 wk). The CT and BFR-CT showed similar increases in CSAq post-test (7.3%, P<0.001; 7.6%, P<0.0001, respectively), 1-RM (38.1%, P<0.001; 35.4%, P=0.001, respectively) and VO(2peak) (9.5%, P=0.04; 10.3%, P=0.02, respectively). The BFR-CT promotes similar neuromuscular and cardiorespiratory adaptations as CT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Libardi et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: