Why the study?
Does low-intensity resistance training combined with blood flow restriction affect blood pressure, heart rate, and rate-pressure product compared to low-intensity training without restriction or high-intensity training?
Does low-intensity resistance training combined with blood flow restriction affect blood pressure, heart rate, and rate-pressure product compared to low-intensity training without restriction or high-intensity training?
Low-intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction causes mild, safe increases in hemodynamic parameters compared to low-intensity training alone.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports safe use of BFR with low-intensity RT in special populations; extends acute safety data but leaves long-term effects open.
Summary This study systematically reviewed the available scientific evidence on the changes promoted by low‐intensity (LI) resistance training (RT) combined with blood flow restriction (BFR) on blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR) and rate‐pressure product (RPP). Searches were performed in databases (PubMed, Web of Science ™ , Scopus and Google Scholar), for the period from January 1990 to May 2015. The study analysis was conducted through a critical review of contents. Of the 1 112 articles identified, 1 091 were excluded and 21 met the selection criteria, including 16 articles evaluating BP, 19 articles evaluating HR and four articles evaluating RPP. Divergent results were found when comparing the LI protocols with BFR versus LI versus high intensity (HI) on BP, HR and RPP. The evidence shows that the protocols using continuous BFR following a LIRT session apparently raise HR, BP and RPP compared with LI protocols without BFR, although increases significantly in BP seem to exist between the HI protocols when compared to LI protocols. Haemodynamic changes (HR, SBP, DBP, MBP, RPP) promoted by LIRT with BFR do not seem to differ between ages and body segments (upper or lower), although they are apparently affected by the width of the cuff and are higher with continuous BFR. However, these changes are within the normal range, rendering this method safe and feasible for special populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Neto et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: