Effect of 16 weeks of resistance exercise and detraining comparing two methods of blood flow restriction in muscle strength of healthy older women: A randomized controlled trial

Letieri, Rubens Vinícius; Teixeira, Ana Maria; Furtado, Guilherme Eustáquio; Lamboglia, Carminda Maria Goersch Fontenele; Rees, Jordan; Gomes, Bernardo

doi:10.1016/j.exger.2018.10.017

Cited by 33 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From the remaining 1413 unique studies, 1334 were excluded through title-abstract assessment, 63 studies following full-text reading, and one eligible study was excluded as data were in-obtainable. 32 Consequently, a total of 16 eligible studies [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] were included in the present meta-analysis ( Figure 1, Table S1).…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Methods to assess mechanical muscle function (T6) were deemed low risk of bias for eight studies, whereas four were unclear risk. Aside from two, 47,48 items concerning same tester descriptions (T1), tester blinding (T2), verbal encouragement during testing (T3), and descriptions of learning effects to tests (T5) were at high risk of bias. Training protocol items, Tr1 through Tr5, were generally at low risk of bias.…”

Section: Risk Of Bias Of Individual Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the included studies 47 was registered in an online trial registry, and none of the other studies had a published protocol or were registered in a clinical trial registry. Based on the 16 included studies, it was not deemed meaningful to perform a funnel plot, nor perform an Egger's test.…”

Section: Risk Of Bias Across Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effect of blood‐flow restricted vs heavy‐load strength training on muscle strength: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Grønfeldt

Nielsen

Mieritz

et al. 2020

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Heavy‐load strength training (HLT) is generally considered the Gold Standard exercise modality for inducing gains in skeletal muscle strength. However, use of heavy external exercise loads may be contraindicative in frail individuals. Low‐load resistance exercise combined with partial blood‐flow restriction (LL‐BFR exercise) may offer an effective alternative for increasing mechanical muscle strength and size. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of LL‐BFR training to HLT on maximal muscle strength gains. Prospero registration‐id (CRD42014013382). Materials and methods A systematic search in six healthcare science databases and reference lists was conducted. Data selected for primary analysis consisted of post‐intervention changes in maximal muscle strength. A random‐effects meta‐analysis with standardized mean differences (SMD) was used. Results Of 1413 papers identified through systematic search routines, sixteen papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria, totalling 153 participants completing HLT and 157 completing LL‐BFR training. The magnitude of training‐induced gains in maximal muscle strength did not differ between LL‐BFR training and HLT (SMD of −0.17 (95% CI: −0.40; 0.05)). Low between‐study heterogeneity was noted (I2 = 0.0%, Chi2 P = 9.65). Conclusion Low‐load blood‐flow‐restricted training appears equally effective of producing gains in maximal voluntary muscle strength compared to HLT in 20‐ to 80‐year‐old healthy and habitually active adults.

show abstract

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Of Bias Of Individual Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of blood‐flow restricted vs heavy‐load strength training on muscle strength: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Grønfeldt

Nielsen

Mieritz

et al. 2020

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other populations included resistance‐trained adults, adults with musculoskeletal or soft tissue injuries, older adults, or adults with hypertension. There were far more studies (26 of 52) examining only male participants, 17,24,25,30,32‐38,41‐43,46,48,50‐59 compared with just 8 of 52 examining only female participants, 40,49,60‐65 leaving 18 studies examining both of these genders 8,19,20,39,44,45,47,66‐75 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of the included studies were acute studies, with only 16 of the 52 included studies assessing adaptations to BFR exercise training 8,35,38,39,41,44,48,50,51,56,59,62,64‐66,74 . Most studies employed traditional upper or lower body resistance exercise protocols, commonly utilizing elbow flexion, leg press, or knee extension exercises.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there rationale for the cuff pressures prescribed for blood flow restriction exercise? A systematic review

Clarkson

May

Warmington

2020

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Blood flow restriction exercise has increasingly broad applications among healthy and clinical populations. Ensuring the technique is applied in a safe, controlled, and beneficial way for target populations is essential. Individualized cuff pressures are a favored method for achieving this. However, there remains marked inconsistency in how individualized cuff pressures are applied. Objectives To quantify the cuff pressures used in the broader blood flow restriction exercise literature, and determine whether there is clear justification for the choice of pressure prescribed. Methods Studies were included in this review from database searches if they employed an experimental design using original data, involved either acute or chronic exercise using blood flow restriction, and they assessed limb or arterial occlusion pressure to determine an individualized cuff pressure. Methodologies of the studies were evaluated using a bespoke quality assessment tool. Results Fifty‐one studies met the inclusion criteria. Individualized cuff pressures ranged from 30% to 100% arterial occlusion pressure. Only 7 out of 52 studies attempted to justify the individualized cuff pressure applied during exercise. The mean quality rating for all studies was 11.1 ± 1.2 out of 13. Conclusions The broader blood flow restriction exercise literature uses markedly heterogeneous prescription variables despite using individualized cuff pressures. This is problematic in the absence of any clear justification for the individualized cuff pressures selected. Systematically measuring and reporting all relevant acute responses and training adaptations to the full spectrum of BFR pressures alongside increased clarity around the methodology used during blood flow restriction exercise is paramount.

show abstract

Potential considerations with estimating blood flow restriction pressure in the lower body using a narrower cuff

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of 16 weeks of resistance exercise and detraining comparing two methods of blood flow restriction in muscle strength of healthy older women: A randomized controlled trial

Cited by 33 publications

References 42 publications

Effect of blood‐flow restricted vs heavy‐load strength training on muscle strength: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Effect of blood‐flow restricted vs heavy‐load strength training on muscle strength: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Is there rationale for the cuff pressures prescribed for blood flow restriction exercise? A systematic review

Potential considerations with estimating blood flow restriction pressure in the lower body using a narrower cuff

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Effect of 16 weeks of resistance exercise and detraining comparing two methods of blood flow restriction in muscle strength of healthy older women: A randomized controlled trial

Cited by 33 publications

References 42 publications

Effect of blood‐flow restricted vs heavy‐load strength training on muscle strength: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Effect of blood‐flow restricted vs heavy‐load strength training on muscle strength: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Is there rationale for the cuff pressures prescribed for blood flow restriction exercise? A systematic review

Potential considerations with estimating blood flow restriction pressure in the lower body using a narrower cuff

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Effect of 16 weeks of resistance exercise and detraining comparing two methods of blood flow restriction in muscle strength of healthy older women: A randomized controlled trial