文献类型：期刊文献

英文题名：Potential Moderators of the Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy: A Meta-analysis Based on a Comparison with High-Load Resistance Training

作者：Geng, Yu[1];Wu, Xueping[2];Zhang, Yong[3];Zhang, Meng[4]

机构：[1]Zhejiang A&F Univ, Dept Phys Educ, Jiyang Coll, Zhuji 311800, Peoples R China;[2]Shanghai Univ Sport, Sch Phys Educ, Shanghai, Peoples R China;[3]Shaoxing Univ, Sch Med, Dept Rehabil Med, Zhejiang, Peoples R China;[4]Huzhou Univ, Sch Phys Educ, Huzhou, Zhejiang, Peoples R China

年份：2024

卷号：10

期号：1

外文期刊名：SPORTS MEDICINE-OPEN

收录：SCI-EXPANDED(收录号：WOS:001228661200001)、、Scopus(收录号：2-s2.0-85193961146)、WOS

语种：英文

外文关键词：Blood flow restriction training; High-load resistance training; Training effect; Strength; Hypertrophy; Training status; Protocol characteristics; Test specificity; Meta-analysis

外文摘要：Background While it has been examined whether there are similar magnitudes of muscle strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low-load resistance training combined with blood-flow restriction training (BFR-RT) and high-load resistance training (HL-RT), some important potential moderators (e.g., age, sex, upper and lower limbs, frequency and duration etc.) have yet to be analyzed further. Furthermore, training status, specificity of muscle strength tests (dynamic versus isometric or isokinetic) and specificity of muscle mass assessments (locations of muscle hypertrophy assessments) seem to exhibit different effects on the results of the analysis. The role of these influencing factors, therefore, remains to be elucidated.Objectives The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of BFR- versus HL-RT on muscle adaptations, when considering the influence of population characteristics (training status, sex and age), protocol characteristics (upper or lower limbs, duration and frequency) and test specificity.Methods Studies were identified through database searches based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular strength; (2) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular hypertrophy; (3) comparison of BFR-RT vs. HL-RT; (4) score >= 4 on PEDro scale; (5) means and standard deviations (or standard errors) are reported or allow estimation from graphs. In cases where the fifth criterion was not met, the data were requested directly from the authors.Results The main finding of the present study was that training status was an important influencing factor in the effects of BFR-RT. The trained individuals may gain greater muscle strength and hypertrophy with BFR-RT as compared to HL-RT. However, the results showed that the untrained individuals experienced similar muscle mass gains and superior muscle strength gains in with HL-RT compared to BFR-RT.Conclusion Compared to HL-RT, training status is an important factor influencing the effects of the BFR-RT, in which trained can obtain greater muscle strength and hypertrophy gains in BFR-RT, while untrained individuals can obtain greater strength gains and similar hypertrophy in HL-RT. Training status is an important factor influencing the effects of the BFR-RT.Trained individuals may obtain greater muscle strength and hypertrophy gains in BFR-RT compared to HL-RT.Untrained individuals may experience a smaller increase in strength and a similar increase in hypertrophy with BFR-RT compared to HL-RT.