Key result
Low-load blood-flow restriction training increased short-term muscle excitability vs low-load training in nonfailure protocols (SMD 0.61; 95% CI 0.34-0.88).
Why the study?
To compare the short- and long-term effects of low-load resistance training with blood-flow restriction versus low- or high-load resistance training with free blood flow on myoelectric activity, and evaluate failure versus nonfailure protocols.
Does low-load resistance training with blood-flow restriction improve myoelectric activity compared to low- or high-load resistance training with free blood flow?
Meta-Analysis
Does low-load resistance training with blood-flow restriction improve myoelectric activity compared to low- or high-load resistance training with free blood flow?
Standardized Mean Difference: 0.61 (95% CI 0.34–0.88)
Low-load blood-flow restriction training increases short-term muscle excitability more than low-load training without restriction, but high-load training remains superior regardless of volitional failure.
LL-BFR boosts acute muscle excitability versus LL-RT in nonfailure protocols; extends mechanistic support for BFR as a low-load training adjunct.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the short- and long-term effects of low-load resistance training with blood-flow restriction (LL-BFR) versus low- (LL-RT) or high- (HL-RT) load resistance training with free blood flow on myoelectric activity and investigate the differences between failure (exercise performed to volitional failure) and nonfailure (exercise not performed to volitional failure) protocols. DATA SOURCES: We identified sources by searching the MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and PEDro electronic databases. STUDY SELECTION: We screened the titles and abstracts of 1048 articles using our inclusion criteria. A total of 39 articles were selected for further analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently assessed the methodologic quality of each study and extracted the data. A meta-analytic approach was used to compute standardized mean differences (SMDs) ± 95% CIs. Subgroup analyses were conducted for both failure and nonfailure protocols. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search identified 39 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Regarding the short-term effects, LL-BFR increased muscle excitability compared with LL-RT during nonfailure protocols (SMD = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.34, 0.88), whereas HL-RT increased muscle excitability compared with LL-BFR during failure (SMD = -0.61; 95% CI = -1.01, -0.21) and nonfailure (SMD = -1.13; 95% CI = -1.94, -0.33) protocols. Concerning the long-term effects, LL-BFR increased muscle excitability compared with LL-RT during exercises performed to failure (SMD = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.39, 1.79). CONCLUSIONS: Greater short-term muscle excitability levels were observed in LL-BFR than in LL-RT during nonfailure protocols. Conversely, greater muscle excitability was present during HL-RT than LL-BFR, regardless of volitional failure. Furthermore, LL-BFR performed to failure increased muscle excitability in the long term compared with LL-RT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cerqueira et al. (2021) reported a meta-analysis. Low-load resistance training with blood-flow restriction (LL-BFR) vs. Low-load (LL-RT) or high-load (HL-RT) resistance training was evaluated on Short-term muscle excitability during nonfailure protocols (SMD 0.61, 95% CI 0.34, 0.88). Low-load blood-flow restriction training increased short-term muscle excitability vs low-load training in nonfailure protocols (SMD 0.61; 95% CI 0.34-0.88).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: