Oliva-Lozano José M, Patterson Stephen D, Chiampas George, Maybury Ellie, Cost Rick
United States Soccer Federation. Chicago, IL, United States.
Centre for Applied Performance Sciences, St Mary's University, Twickenham, London, UK.
Biol Sport. 2024 Jul;41(3):191-200. doi: 10.5114/biolsport.2024.133664. Epub 2024 Feb 7.
The aim of this study was to systematically review the current literature on blood flow restriction (BFR) as a post-exercise recovery strategy. Experimental studies investigating the effect of BFR on recovery after exercise were included. Only studies meeting the following inclusion criteria were selected: (a) studies investigating about BFR as a post-exercise recovery strategy in athletes and healthy individuals; (b) the full text being available in English; (c) experimental research study design. Studies that exclusively analyzed BFR as a recovery strategy during the exercise (e.g., recovery strategy between bouts of exercise) were excluded. A literature review was conducted on the PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science electronic databases up until May 7, 2023. The main findings were that (i) 9 studies investigated passive BFR as a post-exercise recovery strategy, which shows a significant lack of research in both team and individual sports (especially in female populations), and only 2 studies used active BFR protocols; (ii) although a high quality range of studies was observed, there were methodological limitations such as BFR interventions that were usually conducted after fatiguing protocols or fitness tests, which may not represent the real exercise (e.g., a sprint session of 6 sets of 50 m may induce muscle damage but it does not represent the demands of a team sport like rugby or soccer); (iii) there is a lack of consistency in BFR protocols (e.g., number of cycles or duration of the occlusion-reperfusion periods) for recovery; (iv) some studies showed beneficial effects while others found no positive or detrimental effects of BFR as a post-exercise recovery strategy in comparison with the control/SHAM group. In conclusion, only 11 studies investigated BFR as a post-exercise recovery strategy and there is not any significant amount of evidence in team or individual sports (especially in female populations). BFR could be a potential post-exercise recovery strategy, but practitioners should use caution when applying this method of recovery for their athletes and clients. In addition, it would be of interest for high performance-related practitioners to have a better understanding of the benefits of BFR interventions combined with either active or passive forms of exercise as a post-exercise recovery strategy.
本研究的目的是系统回顾当前关于血流限制（BFR）作为运动后恢复策略的文献。纳入了调查BFR对运动后恢复影响的实验研究。仅选择符合以下纳入标准的研究：（a）调查BFR作为运动员和健康个体运动后恢复策略的研究；（b）全文为英文；（c）实验研究设计。专门分析BFR作为运动期间恢复策略（例如，运动回合之间的恢复策略）的研究被排除。截至2023年5月7日，对PubMed、Cochrane和科学网电子数据库进行了文献综述。主要发现如下：（i）9项研究调查了被动BFR作为运动后恢复策略，这表明团队和个人运动（尤其是女性群体）中对此研究明显不足，仅有2项研究使用了主动BFR方案；（ii）尽管观察到一系列高质量研究，但存在方法学局限性，如BFR干预通常在疲劳方案或体能测试后进行，这可能无法代表实际运动（例如，6组50米的冲刺训练可能会导致肌肉损伤，但它并不代表像橄榄球或足球这样的团队运动的需求）；（iii）BFR恢复方案（如循环次数或闭塞-再灌注期持续时间）缺乏一致性；（iv）一些研究显示出有益效果，而另一些研究发现与对照组/假手术组相比，BFR作为运动后恢复策略没有积极或有害影响。总之，仅有11项研究调查了BFR作为运动后恢复策略，团队或个人运动（尤其是女性群体）中没有大量证据。BFR可能是一种潜在的运动后恢复策略，但从业者在将这种恢复方法应用于运动员和客户时应谨慎。此外，与高水平表现相关的从业者更好地了解BFR干预结合主动或被动运动形式作为运动后恢复策略的益处将是有意义的。
