Key result
Blood flow-restricted complex training resulted in significantly lower postactivation potentiation compared to high-load complex training (90.8% vs 96.1%, p=0.010).
Why the study?
Does blood flow-restricted complex training elicit postactivation potentiation compared to high-load complex training in resistance-trained men?
Population
15 college-aged men (mean age: 20.3 ± 0.9 years) with at least 2 years of resistance training experience
Comparison
Blood flow-restricted complex training vs High-load complex training
Design
Other
Authors
Loading...
Neither method elicited postactivation potentiation and both reduced jump height; hypothesis-generating in trained men and should not yet change practice.
Does blood flow-restricted complex training elicit postactivation potentiation compared to high-load complex training in resistance-trained men?
Absolute Event Rate: 90.8% vs 96.1%
p-value: p=0.010
Neither high-load nor blood flow-restricted complex training elicited postactivation potentiation in resistance-trained college-aged men, instead decreasing subsequent vertical jump height.
Cleary et al. (2020) studied this question. Blood flow-restricted (BFR) complex training vs. High-load (HL) complex training was evaluated on Postactivation potentiation (PAP) (p=0.010). Blood flow-restricted complex training resulted in significantly lower postactivation potentiation compared to high-load complex training (90.8% vs 96.1%, p=0.010).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: