Key result
Low-load blood flow restriction training and high-load resistance training significantly improved quadriceps strength, balance, and hop test scores compared with sham training (P<0.05).
Why the study?
This study aimed to examine the effects of low-load blood flow restriction training, sham training, and high-load resistance training on quadriceps strength, dynamic stability, and functional performance.
Does low-load blood flow restriction training or high-load resistance training improve quadriceps strength, dynamic stability, and functional performance in basketball and rugby players?
RCT (n=63)
Single-blind
block randomization
No
Does low-load blood flow restriction training or high-load resistance training improve quadriceps strength, dynamic stability, and functional performance in basketball and rugby players?
p-value: p=< 0.05
Low-load blood flow restriction training and high-load resistance training provide comparable improvements in quadriceps strength, dynamic stability, and functional performance compared to sham training in athletes.
May support BFR or high-load training in rehab protocols; leaves open optimal dosing and long-term outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Blood flow restriction (BFR) is a method used to affix a pneumatic cuff to the uppermost part of a leg. Blood flow restriction is often combined with low load-blood flow restriction training (LL-BFRt) to enhance strength and promote muscle hypertrophy. Therefore, this research aimed to examine the effect of LL-BFRt, sham LL-BFRt, and high load-resistance training (HL-Rt) on quadriceps strength (QS), dynamic stability, and functional performance. DESIGN: Single-blinded randomized trial method. SETTING: A private physical therapy clinic in Bali, Indonesia. PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from 63 basketball and rugby players assigned to 3 intervention groups, namely, LL-BFRt, sham LL-BFRt, and HL-Rt, through block randomization. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: Each participant received intervention consisting of 45-minute sessions twice per week for 8 weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quadriceps strength, star excursion balance test (SEBT), and single-leg hop test (SLHT) were evaluated in baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks of the intervention period. RESULTS: In LL-BFRt and HL-Rt groups, QS, SEBT, and SLHT scores were significantly improved during 8-week intervention period, except in sham LL-BFRt group. Furthermore, there was a significant improvement in LL-BFRt ( QS: 9.2-33.5 Newton; SEBT: 1.2-11.1 cm; SLHT: 1.3-9.8 cm, P -values < 0.05) and HL-Rt groups ( QS: 15.4-35.9 Newton; SEBT: 2.2-9.0 cm; SLHT: 4.5-15.8 cm, P < 0.05) compared with sham LL-BFRt. CONCLUSIONS: The improvements attained by participants using LL-BFRt and HL-Rt were comparable and capable of improving QS, SEBT, and SLHT more than sham LL-BFRt. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05951036.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adhitya et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in basketball and rugby players (n=63). Low-load blood flow restriction training (LL-BFRt) or high-load resistance training (HL-Rt) vs. Sham LL-BFRt was evaluated on Quadriceps strength, star excursion balance test (SEBT), and single-leg hop test (SLHT) (p=< 0.05). Low-load blood flow restriction training and high-load resistance training significantly improved quadriceps strength, balance, and hop test scores compared with sham training (P<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: