Suppr超能文献

血流限制重负荷抗阻训练对健康志愿者力量、功率和速度的影响:一项系统评价和荟萃分析

Effect of blood-flow restricted heavy-load resistance training on strength, power, and speed for healthy volunteers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Wang Tao, Liu Yutong, Wang Xiaolin, Amri Saidon, Kamalden Tengku Fadilah, Gao Zhendong, Ng Yee Guan

机构信息

Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.

Department of Sports Teaching and Research, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.

出版信息

PeerJ. 2025 Mar 18;13:e19110. doi: 10.7717/peerj.19110. eCollection 2025.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) training has been shown to enhance muscle strength, power, and speed, but its effectiveness compared to traditional high-load resistance (HLR) training remains unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of LL-BFR and HLR training on muscle strength, power, and speed.

METHODOLOGY

Studies were identified by searching the SCOPUS, SPORTDiscus, PubMed, Web of Science, and CNKI databases up to May 13, 2024, using the following inclusion criteria: (a) healthy population; (b) comparison of LL-BFR HLR training; (c) pre- and post-training assessment of muscle strength (dynamic, isometric, and isokinetic), muscle power, jump, or speed performance; (d) PEDro scale score ≥4. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the PEDro tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, with meta-analyses conducted using the R program.

RESULTS

A total of 41 studies, involving 853 subjects, were included in the meta-analysis. Based on the PEDro scores and GRADE assessment, the overall quality of the included studies was assessed as moderate. LL-BFR training showed a slightly smaller effect on maximal strength compared to HLR training (ES = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.31 to -0.06], < 0.01). There were no significant differences between LL-BFR and HLR training for muscle power (ES = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.33 to 0.24], > 0.05), jump performance (ES = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.30 to 0.15], > 0.05), and speed (ES = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.71 to 0.15], > 0.05). Additionally, individual characteristics (., age, gender, and training status) and training parameters (., training duration, frequency, cuff pressure, and cuff width) did not significantly moderate the training effect.

CONCLUSIONS

LL-BFR training showed slightly less improvement in maximal strength compared to HLR training but demonstrated comparable effects on muscle power, jump performance, and speed in healthy individuals in healthy individuals. These findings suggest that LL-BFR may be a practical and effective alternative for individuals seeking performance improvements with lower training loads.

摘要

背景

低负荷血流限制(LL - BFR)训练已被证明可增强肌肉力量、功率和速度,但其与传统高负荷阻力(HLR)训练相比的有效性仍不明确。本荟萃分析旨在比较LL - BFR和HLR训练对肌肉力量、功率和速度的影响。

方法

通过检索截至2024年5月13日的SCOPUS、SPORTDiscus、PubMed、Web of Science和CNKI数据库来确定研究,使用以下纳入标准:(a)健康人群;(b)LL - BFR与HLR训练的比较;(c)训练前后对肌肉力量(动态、等长和等速)、肌肉功率、跳跃或速度表现的评估;(d)PEDro量表评分≥4。使用PEDro工具和推荐分级评估、制定与评价(GRADE)方法评估纳入研究的方法学质量,并使用R程序进行荟萃分析。

结果

荟萃分析共纳入41项研究,涉及853名受试者。根据PEDro评分和GRADE评估,纳入研究的总体质量被评估为中等。与HLR训练相比,LL - BFR训练对最大力量的影响略小(效应量= - 0.19,95%置信区间[- 0.31至- 0.06],P<0.01)。LL - BFR和HLR训练在肌肉功率(效应量= - 0.04,95%置信区间[- 0.33至0.24],P>0.05)、跳跃表现(效应量= - 0.08,95%置信区间[- 0.30至0.15],P>0.05)和速度(效应量= - 0.28,95%置信区间[- 0.71至0.15],P>0.05)方面无显著差异。此外,个体特征(如年龄、性别和训练状态)和训练参数(如训练持续时间、频率、袖带压力和袖带宽度)对训练效果无显著调节作用。

结论

与HLR训练相比,LL - BFR训练在最大力量方面的改善略少,但在健康个体的肌肉功率、跳跃表现和速度方面显示出相当的效果。这些发现表明,对于寻求以较低训练负荷提高运动表现的个体而言,LL - BFR可能是一种实用且有效的替代方法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2afc/11927561/f110d9b9f472/peerj-13-19110-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验