Geng Yu, Wu Xueping, Zhang Yong, Zhang Meng
Department of Physical Education, Jiyang College of Zhejiang A&F University, Zhuji, 311800, People's Republic of China.
School of Physical Education, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Sports Med Open. 2024 May 22;10(1):58. doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00719-3.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
虽然已经研究了低负荷抗阻训练结合血流限制训练(BFR-RT)与高负荷抗阻训练(HL-RT)之间肌肉力量和肥大适应的程度是否相似,但一些重要的潜在调节因素(如年龄、性别、上肢和下肢、频率和持续时间等)尚未进一步分析。此外,训练状态、肌肉力量测试的特异性(动态与等长或等速)以及肌肉质量评估的特异性(肌肉肥大评估的部位)似乎对分析结果有不同影响。因此,这些影响因素的作用仍有待阐明。
本荟萃分析的目的是在考虑人群特征(训练状态、性别和年龄)、方案特征(上肢或下肢、持续时间和频率)和测试特异性的影响时,比较BFR-RT与HL-RT对肌肉适应的影响。
通过数据库检索,根据以下纳入标准确定研究:(1)训练前后的肌肉力量评估;(2)训练前后的肌肉肥大评估;(3)BFR-RT与HL-RT的比较;(4)PEDro量表得分≥4;(5)报告了均值和标准差(或标准误)或允许从图表中估计。如果未满足第五项标准,则直接向作者索取数据。
本研究的主要发现是训练状态是BFR-RT效果的重要影响因素。与HL-RT相比,受过训练的个体通过BFR-RT可能获得更大的肌肉力量和肥大。然而,结果表明,与BFR-RT相比,未受过训练的个体在HL-RT中经历了相似的肌肉质量增加和更好的肌肉力量增加。
与HL-RT相比,训练状态是影响BFR-RT效果的重要因素,其中受过训练的个体在BFR-RT中可获得更大的肌肉力量和肥大增加,而未受过训练的个体在HL-RT中可获得更大的力量增加和相似的肥大。