Key result
BFR-MIIT achieved equivalent improvements in aerobic capacity compared to HIIT, while yielding significantly better improvements in lower extremity performance and lower perceived exertion.
Why the study?
It was unknown whether blood flow restriction moderate-intensity interval training could achieve or surpass the training effects of high-intensity interval training at lower training intensities.
Does blood flow restriction moderate-intensity interval training improve aerobic capacity and lower extremity performance compared to high-intensity interval training in male college basketball players?
RCT (n=33)
Randomly assigned
No
Does blood flow restriction moderate-intensity interval training improve aerobic capacity and lower extremity performance compared to high-intensity interval training in male college basketball players?
Standardized Mean Difference: 0.627 (95% CI -0.367–1.621)
Absolute Event Rate: 44.48% vs 42.82%
p-value: p=0.479
BFR-MIIT offers a lower-exertion alternative to HIIT that achieves equivalent aerobic gains while providing superior improvements in lower extremity performance for basketball players.
BFR-MIIT matches HIIT for VO2max gains with superior lower-extremity performance and lower exertion in basketball players; extends BFR training evidence to athletes.
This study investigated whether blood flow restriction moderate-intensity interval training (BFR-MIIT) could achieve or surpass the training effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) at lower training intensities. A total of 33 male college basketball players completed the trial and were randomly assigned to the BFR-MIIT group ( n = 17) and the HIIT group ( n = 16). Both groups performed the 4 × 4 “Norwegian” training method, with the BFR-MIIT group engaging in moderate-intensity training and the HIIT group in high-intensity training. Assessments included the Wingate Anaerobic Power Test, the multistage 20-meter shuttle run test, and tests of jumping ability (countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), and drop jump (DJ)), sprinting ability (30-meter sprint), and change of direction ability (505 test). Post-intervention, both the BFR-MIIT group ( p < 0.001, ES=-1.199) and the HIIT group ( p = 0.02, ES=-0.526) showed significant and equivalent improvements in VO 2max . However, neither group significantly improved peak power (PP) or relative peak power (PP/kg). The BFR-MIIT group demonstrated superior improvements in lower extremity performance compared to the HIIT group in CMJ ( p = 0.007; ES=-0.570), SJ ( p < 0.001; ES=-0.537), DJ ( p < 0.001; ES=-0.805), and the 505 test ( p < 0.001; ES = 1.708). Additionally, across four measurements of the Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE), the BFR-MIIT group reported significantly lower RPE than the HIIT group ( p < 0.05). In conclusion, compared to HIIT, BFR-MIIT can achieve equivalent improvements in aerobic capacity at lower training intensities and perceived exertion while yielding better improvements in lower extremity performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Healthy male college basketball players (n=33). Blood flow restriction moderate-intensity interval training (BFR-MIIT) vs. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) at 85-95% HRmax was evaluated on Maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) (ES 0.627, 95% CI -0.367 to 1.621, p=0.479). BFR-MIIT achieved equivalent improvements in aerobic capacity compared to HIIT, while yielding significantly better improvements in lower extremity performance and lower perceived exertion.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: