Acute Response of Sclerostin to Whole-body Vibration with Blood Flow
                    Restriction

Gapper, Kyle S.; Stevens, Sally J.; Antoni, R.; Hunt, Julie E. A.; Allison, Sarah J.

doi:10.1055/a-1422-3376

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 56 publications

(81 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Different BFR methods (e.g., cuff pressure, cuff width and BFR type) result in different hemodynamics ( Neto et al, 2017a ; Zhang et al, 2022 ), which may have different effects on bone adaptations. Gapper et al (2021) found that there was no difference in the acute effects of LI-BFR training with 110 mmHg pressure versus LI training on bone metabolism among young adults. The most likely reason is that the cuff pressure of 110 mmHg may not be sufficient to elicit any osteocytic response.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Effects of blood flow restriction training on bone metabolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Wang

Yang

et al. 2023

Front. Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The efficacy of low-intensity blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) training programs in bone metabolism remains unclear compared to low-intensity (LI) training and high-intensity (HI) training. The aim of this review was to quantitatively identify the effects of LI-BFR training on changes in bone formation markers (i.e., bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, BALP), bone resorption (i.e., C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen, CTX) and bone mineral density (BMD) compared with conventional resistance training programmes. Additionally, the effectiveness of walking with and without BFR was assessed.Methods: PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were searched for articles based on eligibility criteria. Review Manager Version 5.4 was used for Meta-analysis. Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was applied to assess the methodological quality of studies.Results: 12 articles were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 378 participants. Meta-results showed that compared with LI training, LI-BFR training induced greater increments in BALP (young adults: MD = 6.70, p < 0.001; old adults: MD = 3.94, p = 0.002), slight increments in BMD (young adults: MD = 0.05, p < 0.00001; old adults: MD = 0.01, p < 0.00001), and greater decrements in CTX (young adults: MD = −0.19, p = 0.15; old adults: MD = −0.07, p = 0.003). Compared with HI training, LI-BFR training produced smaller increments in BALP (young adults: MD = −6.87, p = 0.24; old adults: MD = −0.6, p = 0.58), similar increments in BMD (MD = −0.01, p = 0.76) and similar decrements in CTX (young adults: MD = 0, p = 0.96; old adults: MD = −0.08, p = 0.13). Although there were only two studies on walking training intervention, walking training with BFR had a better effect on bone metabolism than training without BFR.Discussion: In conclusion, LI-BFR training induces greater improvements in bone health than LI training, but is less effective than HI training. Therefore, LI-BFR training may be an effective and efficient way to improve bone health for untrained individuals, older adults, or those undergoing musculoskeletal rehabilitation.Clinical Trial Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42023411837].

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%