Suppr超能文献

比较使用调节或非调节压力系统的血流限制训练的适应性:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Comparing adaptations from blood flow restriction exercise training using regulated or unregulated pressure systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Institute for Health & Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.

出版信息

Clin Rehabil. 2024 Nov;38(11):1446-1465. doi: 10.1177/02692155241271040. Epub 2024 Aug 6.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

No study has examined outcomes derived from blood flow restriction exercise training interventions using compared with blood flow restriction pressure systems. Therefore, we used a systematic review and meta-analyses to compare the chronic adaptations to blood flow restriction exercise training achieved with and blood flow restriction pressure systems.

DATA SOURCES

The electronic database search included using the tool EBSCOhost and other online database search engines. The search included Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Embase and SpringerLink.

METHODS

Included studies utilised chronic blood flow restriction exercise training interventions greater than two weeks duration, where blood flow restriction was applied using a or blood flow restriction pressure system, and where outcome measures such as muscle strength, muscle size or physical function were measured both pre- and post-training. Studies included in the meta-analyses used an equivalent non-blood flow restriction exercise comparison group.

RESULTS

Eighty-one studies were included in the systematic review. Data showed that ( = 47) and ( = 34) blood flow restriction pressure systems yield similar training adaptations for all outcome measures post-intervention. For muscle strength and muscle size, this was reaffirmed in the included meta-analyses.

CONCLUSION

This review indicates that practitioners may achieve comparable training adaptations with blood flow restriction exercise training using either or blood flow restriction pressure systems. Therefore, additional factors such as device quality, participant comfort and safety, cost and convenience are important factors to consider when deciding on appropriate equipment to use when prescribing blood flow restriction exercise training.

摘要

目的

尚无研究比较过采用[压力系统 1]与[压力系统 2]的血流限制训练干预措施所产生的结果。因此,我们采用系统评价和荟萃分析来比较血流限制训练达到的慢性适应,这种训练分别采用[压力系统 1]和[压力系统 2]。

资料来源

电子数据库检索包括使用 EBSCOhost 工具和其他在线数据库搜索引擎。检索包括 Medline、SPORTDiscus、CINAHL、Embase 和 SpringerLink。

方法

纳入的研究采用了持续超过两周的慢性血流限制训练干预措施,血流限制采用[压力系统 1]或[压力系统 2],并且在训练前后都测量了肌肉力量、肌肉大小或身体功能等结果指标。纳入荟萃分析的研究使用了等效的非血流限制训练对照组。

结果

系统评价纳入了 81 项研究。数据显示,[压力系统 1](n=47)和[压力系统 2](n=34)血流限制压力系统在干预后所有结果指标上产生的训练适应性相似。对于肌肉力量和肌肉大小,这在纳入的荟萃分析中得到了再次证实。

结论

本综述表明,从业者在采用血流限制训练时,无论是使用[压力系统 1]还是[压力系统 2],都可能获得相似的训练适应性。因此,当决定使用血流限制训练时,设备质量、参与者舒适度和安全性、成本和便利性等其他因素是重要的考虑因素。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4b3e/11528959/78c5403d8372/10.1177_02692155241271040-fig1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验