Key result
Low-intensity blood flow restriction calf muscle training was equally effective as conventional low-load training for increasing 1-RM strength and muscle thickness in trained males, but required fewer repetitions.
Why the study?
It was unknown whether six-week low-intensity calf resistance training with practical blood flow restriction is superior to training without blood flow restriction for muscle mass and strength gains.
Does low-intensity blood flow restriction calf muscle training improve muscle mass and strength compared to conventional low-load strength training in healthy trained males?
RCT (n=21)
Single-blind
Matched pair design based on initial 1-RM
No
Does low-intensity blood flow restriction calf muscle training improve muscle mass and strength compared to conventional low-load strength training in healthy trained males?
Low-intensity blood flow restriction training is as effective as conventional low-load training to failure for increasing calf muscle strength and thickness, but is more time-efficient due to fewer repetitions required.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Offers time-efficient BFR calf training for trained males; extends evidence to lower-limb applications.
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a six-week, twice weekly resistance training (4 sets at 30% 1-RM until failure) with practical blood flow restriction (BFR) using 7cm wide cuffs with a twist lock placed below the patella is superior to training without BFR (NoBFR) concerning muscle mass and strength gains in calf muscles. A two-group (BFR n = 12, mean age 27.33 (7.0) years, training experience 7.3 (7.0) years; NoBFR n = 9, mean age 28.9 (7.4) years, training experience 7.1 (6.6) years) randomized matched pair design based on initial 1-RM was used to assess the effects on structural and functional adaptations in healthy males (Perometer calf volume [CV], gastrocnemius muscle thickness using ultrasound [MT], 7-maximal hopping test for leg stiffness [LS], 1-RM smith machine calf raise [1-RM], and visual analogue scale as a measure of pain intensity [VAS]). The mean number of repetitions completed per training session across the intervention period was higher in the NoBFR group compared to the BFR group (70 (16) vs. 52 (9), p = 0.002). VAS measured during the first session increased similarly in both groups from first to fourth set (p<0.001). No group effects or time×group interactions were found for CV, MT, LS, and 1-RM. However, there were significant time effects for MT (BFR +0.07 cm; NoBFR +0.04; p = 0.008), and 1-RM (BFR +40 kg; NoBFR +34 kg; p<0.001). LS and CV remained unchanged through training. VAS in both groups were similar, and BFR and NoBFR were equally effective for increasing 1-RM and MT in trained males. However, BFR was more time efficient, due to lesser repetition per training session.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gavanda et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Healthy resistance-trained males (n=21). Low-intensity blood flow restriction (BFR) calf muscle training vs. Low-intensity conventional calf muscle training without BFR was evaluated on 1-RM calf raise (p=0.852). Low-intensity blood flow restriction calf muscle training was equally effective as conventional low-load training for increasing 1-RM strength and muscle thickness in trained males, but required fewer repetitions.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: