The primary objective of this investigation was to quantitatively identify which training variables result in the greatest strength and hypertrophy outcomes with lower body low intensity training with blood flow restriction (LI-BFR). Searches were performed for published studies with certain criteria. First, the primary focus of the study must have compared the effects of low intensity endurance or resistance training alone to low intensity exercise with some form of blood flow restriction. Second, subject populations had to have similar baseline characteristics so that valid outcome measures could be made. Finally, outcome measures had to include at least one measure of muscle hypertrophy. All studies included in the analysis utilized MRI except for two which reported changes via ultrasound. The mean overall effect size (ES) for muscle strength for LI-BFR was 0.58 [95% CI: 0.40, 0.76], and 0.00 [95% CI: -0.18, 0.17] for low intensity training. The mean overall ES for muscle hypertrophy for LI-BFR training was 0.39 [95% CI: 0.35, 0.43], and -0.01 [95% CI: -0.05, 0.03] for low intensity training. Blood flow restriction resulted in significantly greater gains in strength and hypertrophy when performed with resistance training than with walking. In addition, performing LI-BFR 2-3 days per week resulted in the greatest ES compared to 4-5 days per week. Significant correlations were found between ES for strength development and weeks of duration, but not for muscle hypertrophy. This meta-analysis provides insight into the impact of different variables on muscular strength and hypertrophy to LI-BFR training.

There is no clear agreement regarding the ideal combination of factors needed to optimize postactivation potentiation (PAP) after a conditioning activity. Therefore, a meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects of training status, volume, rest period length, conditioning activity, and gender on power augmentation due to PAP. A total of 141 effect sizes (ESs) for muscular power were obtained from a total of 32 primary studies, which met our criteria of investigating the effects of a heavy preconditioning activity on power in randomized human trials. The mean overall ES for muscle power was 0.38 after a conditioning activity (p < 0.05). Significant differences were found between moderate intensity (60-84%) 1.06 and heavy intensity (>85%) 0.31 (p < 0.05). There were overall significant differences found between single sets 0.24 and multiple sets 0.66 (p < 0.05). Rest periods of 7-10 minutes (0.7) after a conditioning activity resulted in greater ES than 3-7 minutes (0.54), which was greater than rest periods of >10 minutes (0.02) (p < 0.05). Significant differences were found between untrained 0.14 and athletes 0.81 and between trained 0.29 and athletes. The primary findings of this study were that a conditioning activity augmented power output, and these effects increased with training experience, but did not differ significantly between genders. Moreover, potentiation was optimal after multiple (vs. single) sets, performed at moderate intensities, and using moderate rest periods lengths (7-10 minutes).

The primary objective of this investigation was to identify which components of endurance training (e.g., modality, duration, frequency) are detrimental to resistance training outcomes. A meta-analysis of 21 studies was performed with a total of 422 effect sizes (ESs). Criteria for the study included were (a) compare strength training alone to strength plus endurance training (concurrent) or to compare combinations of concurrent training; (b) the outcome measures include at least one measure of strength, power, or hypertrophy; and (c) the data necessary to calculate ESs must be included or available. The mean ES for hypertrophy for strength training was 1.23; for endurance training, it was 0.27; and for concurrent training, it was 0.85, with strength and concurrent training being significantly greater than endurance training only. The mean ES for strength development for strength training was 1.76; for endurance training, it was 0.78; and for concurrent training, it was 1.44. Strength and concurrent training was significantly greater than endurance training. The mean ES for power development for strength training only was 0.91; for endurance training, it was 0.11; and for concurrent training, it was 0.55. Significant differences were found between all the 3 groups. For moderator variables, resistance training concurrently with running, but not cycling, resulted in significant decrements in both hypertrophy and strength. Correlational analysis identified significant negative relationships between frequency (-0.26 to -0.35) and duration (-0.29 to -0.75) of endurance training for hypertrophy, strength, and power. Significant relationships (p < 0.05) between ES for decreased body fat and % maximal heart rate (r = -0.60) were also found. Our results indicate that interference effects of endurance training are a factor of the modality, frequency, and duration of the endurance training selected.

No abstract