Key result
Absolute and incremental blood flow restriction training achieved comparable gains in lower-body maximal strength to high-load resistance training (p>0.05 for intergroup differences).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to examine the impacts of absolute cuff pressure versus incremental cuff pressure blood flow restriction training on body composition and maximal strength in untrained adults, and to compare them with high-load resistance training.
Do absolute or incremental blood flow restriction training modes improve body composition and maximal strength in untrained adults compared to high-load resistance training?
RCT (n=33)
randomly assigned
Do absolute or incremental blood flow restriction training modes improve body composition and maximal strength in untrained adults compared to high-load resistance training?
Blood flow restriction training achieves comparable gains in muscle strength and body composition to high-load resistance training in untrained adults.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BFR may match high-load strength gains in untrained adults; leaves open clinical translation and durability.
Background: The objective of this study was to examine the impacts of absolute cuff pressure blood flow restriction (A-BFR) training and incremental cuff pressure blood flow restriction (I-BFR) training, under equal cuff pressures, on body composition and maximal strength among untrained adults. Additionally, we aimed to compare these effects with those observed in high-load resistance training (HL-RT). Methods: Thirty-three adults without prior professional sports or resistance training experience were recruited and randomly assigned to three groups (n = 11 per group) for an 8-week training program, held three times weekly. The A-BFR group trained with a 20% 1RM load and a cuff occlusion pressure set at 190 mmHg. The I-BFR group initiated training with an occlusion pressure of 160 mmHg, which incrementally increased by 20 mmHg every two weeks, with other conditions mirroring those of the A-BFR group. The HL-RT group trained with a 70% 1RM load. Results: All three groups demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in lower-body maximal strength (p < 0.01), with no significant differences observed among the groups (p > 0.05). A notable increase in left-leg muscle mass was seen across all groups (p < 0.05). However, total muscle mass, right-leg muscle mass, fat-free mass, BMI, bone mineral density, and bone mineral content remained relatively unchanged (p > 0.05), with no significant differences among the groups (p > 0.05). Only the HL-RT group exhibited a significant increase in left-leg thigh circumference (p < 0.05), while right-leg thigh circumference remained stable (p > 0.05), with no significant intergroup differences (p > 0.05). Conclusions: While A-BFR and I-BFR did not yield statistically significant differences in overall training outcomes, A-BFR demonstrated a slightly stronger potential. A-BFR and I-BFR achieved comparable gains in muscle strength and improvements in body composition to those seen with HL-RT. However, HL-RT demonstrated more significant improvements in leg circumference.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chang et al. (2024) conducted an RCT in Untrained adults (n=33). Absolute and incremental cuff pressure blood flow restriction (A-BFR and I-BFR) training vs. High-load resistance training (HL-RT) with 70% 1RM load was evaluated on Lower-body maximal strength (p=>0.05). Absolute and incremental blood flow restriction training achieved comparable gains in lower-body maximal strength to high-load resistance training (p>0.05 for intergroup differences).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: