Walking training with 60% limb occlusion pressure increased heart rate more than training without restriction (MD 3.82 beats/min; 95% CI 0.72-6.91; p=0.016) in sedentary college students.
RCT (n=60)
Crossover
Does 5-minute low-intensity walking training with blood flow restriction alter hemodynamic and perceptual responses compared to walking without restriction in sedentary college students?
Low-intensity walking training with 40-60% limb occlusion pressure safely induces modest cardiovascular changes and is well-tolerated in sedentary college students.
Mean Difference: 3.82 (95% CI 0.72–6.91)
p-value: p=0.016
College students often present a sedentary lifestyle. Low-intensity walking training with blood flow restriction (WT-BFR) may offer health benefits comparable to moderate-to-high intensity walking training without restriction, yet its effects in sedentary college students remain unclear. This study aimed to examine the effects of WT-BFR at different limb occlusion pressure (LOP) on hemodynamic and perceptual responses in sedentary college students using a randomized crossover design. The study was registered on the China Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2500097728 25/02/2025). A total of 60 participants completed the 5-minute WT-BFR with varying LOPs (i.e., 0%, 40%, 60%, and 80%). Hemodynamic parameters (blood pressure and heart rate) were measured before, immediately after, and 5 minutes post-intervention. Meanwhile, perceptual responses (perceived exertion and discomfort) and step numbers were recorded post-intervention. For the hemodynamic parameters, only 60% LOP showed a larger increase in heart rate after training than 0% LOP (walk training without BFR) condition (3.82, 95%CI: 0.72 to 6.91, p = 0.016, beats/min), representing a relative increase of approximately 5.6% from baseline. With the increase of LOP, perceived exertion and discomfort were increased significantly (p < 0.05), and the step numbers were reduced (p < 0.05). Based on participant perception, an LOP range of 40%–60% is recommended. Clinically, the observed cardiovascular changes were modest and within safe ranges for healthy young adults. The long-term health effects of low-intensity WT-BFR among college students warrant further investigation.
Y et al. (Mon,) conducted a rct in Sedentary lifestyle (n=60). Walking training with blood flow restriction (WT-BFR) vs. 0% limb occlusion pressure (walking training without BFR) was evaluated on Hemodynamic parameters (blood pressure and heart rate) (MD 3.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 6.91, p=0.016). Walking training with 60% limb occlusion pressure increased heart rate more than training without restriction (MD 3.82 beats/min; 95% CI 0.72-6.91; p=0.016) in sedentary college students.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: