Kataoka Ryo, Hammert William B, Yamada Yujiro, Sallberg Robert W, Kang Anna, Song Jun Seob, Kassiano Witalo, Metcalf Emily E, Loenneke Jeremy P
Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, University, P.O. Box 1848, Oxford, MS, 38677, USA.
Department of Counseling, Health, and Kinesiology, Texas A&M University-San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2025 Sep 4. doi: 10.1007/s00421-025-05949-1.
To examine the effects of submaximal low-load resistance exercise with and without blood flow restriction (BFR) on muscle size, strength, cross-education of strength, and muscular endurance with BFR compared to low-load exercise to failure.
144 participants were randomly assigned to: (1) submaximal low-load exercise (LL, n = 37), (2) submaximal low-load exercise with BFR (LL + BFR, n = 35), (3) low-load exercise to failure (LL-Failure, n = 36), and (4) non-exercise control (CON, n = 36). Training consisted of 2 sets of 30% 1RM elbow flexion exercise, performed 3 days/week for 6 weeks. Repetitions performed by the submaximal groups were based on the muscular endurance test with BFR during pre-testing (70% of maximal BFR repetitions in week 1 and 95% in week 6).
LL + BFR led to greater increases in muscle thickness (0.14 cm) compared to LL (0.06 cm), and was comparable to LL-Failure (0.17 cm). 1RM strength gains were greater in LL (0.45 kg), LL + BFR (0.54 kg), and LL-Failure (0.34 kg) compared to CON (-0.36 kg), with no differences between training groups. There was no evidence of cross-education of strength. Changes in muscular endurance with BFR were greatest in LL-Failure (16.5 reps), followed by LL + BFR (10.0 reps), LL (4.2 reps), and CON (-0.03 reps).
The effectiveness of BFR during submaximal exercise may depend on the specific adaptation targeted. Submaximal BFR produced muscle growth comparable to failure training. Neither BFR nor proximity to failure was necessary to maximize strength gains. Muscular endurance with BFR increased in all training groups, but improved the most with failure training.
研究次最大负荷低负荷抗阻运动在有或无血流限制（BFR）情况下对肌肉大小、力量、力量的交叉训练以及肌肉耐力的影响，并将有BFR的情况与低负荷运动至力竭进行比较。
144名参与者被随机分配到：（1）次最大负荷低负荷运动（LL，n = 37），（2）有BFR的次最大负荷低负荷运动（LL + BFR，n = 35），（3）低负荷运动至力竭（LL - Failure，n = 36），以及（4）非运动对照组（CON，n = 36）。训练包括两组30% 1RM的屈肘运动，每周进行3天，共6周。次最大负荷组的重复次数基于测试前有BFR时的肌肉耐力测试（第1周为最大BFR重复次数的70%，第6周为95%）。
与LL组（增加0.06厘米）相比，LL + BFR组的肌肉厚度增加更大（0.14厘米），且与LL - Failure组（0.17厘米）相当。与CON组（减少0.36千克）相比，LL组（增加0.45千克）、LL + BFR组（增加0.54千克）和LL - Failure组（增加0.34千克）的1RM力量增加更大，各训练组之间无差异。没有证据表明存在力量的交叉训练。有BFR时，肌肉耐力的变化在LL - Failure组最大（增加16.5次重复），其次是LL + BFR组（增加10.0次重复）、LL组（增加4.2次重复）和CON组（减少0.03次重复）。
次最大负荷运动期间BFR的有效性可能取决于所针对的特定适应性变化。次最大负荷BFR产生的肌肉增长与力竭训练相当。无论是BFR还是接近力竭对于使力量增加最大化都不是必需的。所有训练组有BFR时的肌肉耐力均增加，但力竭训练时改善最为明显。
