Why the study?
To compare the acute effects of low-load resistance training associated with blood flow restriction with low-load and high-load resistance training on cardiovascular outcomes in healthy individuals.
Does low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction alter acute cardiovascular responses compared to low-load or high-load resistance training in healthy young individuals?
Does low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction alter acute cardiovascular responses compared to low-load or high-load resistance training in healthy young individuals?
Low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction results in lower acute cardiac output and heart rate compared to high-load resistance training in healthy young individuals.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May favor LLRT-BFR to limit acute cardiac demand; extends Level 1 evidence on BFR training safety versus high-load protocols.
Aim: To compare the acute effects of low-load resistance training associated with blood flow restriction (LLRT-BFR) with low-load resistance training (LLRT) and high-load resistance training (HLRT) on cardiovascular outcomes in healthy individuals. Methods: This review was registered and the studies were selected using seven databases. Randomized controlled clinical trials were included that evaluated LLRT-BFR compared with LLRT and HLRT in young individuals for the cardiovascular outcomes. Results: 19 studies were included. In the comparison of LLRT-BFR with HLRT, there were significant differences for cardiac output and heart rate – with reduced values and in favor of LLRT-BFR. Conclusion: There are no greater acute effects of the addition of blood flow restriction, with the exception of the reduction in cardiac output and heart rate for LLRT-BFR compared with HLRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lemos et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: