Key result
Blood flow restriction training induced similar increases in bicep circumference and 1RM strength as high-intensity training (time x condition interaction p=0.861 for men's circumference).
Why the study?
No study had incorporated blood flow restriction training in a collegiate strength and conditioning setting to assess ecological validity.
Does blood flow restriction training improve muscle strength and hypertrophy compared to high-intensity resistance training in collegiate soccer players?
RCT (n=17)
randomly assigned
Does blood flow restriction training improve muscle strength and hypertrophy compared to high-intensity resistance training in collegiate soccer players?
Blood flow restriction training induces similar muscle strength and hypertrophy gains as high-intensity resistance training in collegiate athletes, offering a viable alternative training method.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BFRT produced similar strength and size gains to HIRT in Division III soccer players; leaves open whether findings generalize beyond this preliminary ecological study.
Background: Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) uses occlusion during low-intensity resistance training (<50% of repetition maximum, 1RM) to reduce arterial blood flow and venous return, imposing greater metabolic stress but similar muscular hypertrophy and strength gains as high-intensity resistance training (HIRT). However, no study, to date, has incorporated BFRT in a collegiate strength and conditioning setting to assess ecological validity. We aimed to investigate the effects of adding 6-weeks of accessory BFRT or HIRT to NCAA Division III soccer players prescribed resistance training regimen on muscle strength and hypertrophy. Methods: Male and female (n=17) athletes were randomly assigned to complete biceps curls 2x/week under BFRT or control (HIRT), following the regularly scheduled strength training. Bicep strength (1RM) and circumference (BC) were assessed at weeks 0, 3, and 6. Results: In men, no significant interaction between time and condition was observed for BC (p=0.861), though condition (BFRT vs Control, p=0.025) and time (p=0.024) were significant. For 1RM, there was no significant interaction between time and condition (BFRT vs HIRT, p=0.067) or of condition (p=0.598), but there was a significant effect of time (p=0.004). In women, there was no significant interaction between time and condition (p=0.765) or of condition (p=0.971) on BC, but time was significant (p=0.045). For 1RM, there was no significant interaction between time and condition (p=0.227) or of condition (p=0.741), but time was (p=0.018). Conclusion: BFRT induced similar increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy as HIRT in soccer players, suggesting that BFRT could be incorporated into collegiate athlete training.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Judd et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Healthy athletes (soccer players) (n=17). Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) vs. High-intensity resistance training (HIRT) was evaluated on Bicep strength (1RM) and circumference (BC) (p=0.861 for men BC interaction). Blood flow restriction training induced similar increases in bicep circumference and 1RM strength as high-intensity training (time x condition interaction p=0.861 for men's circumference).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: