Magnitude of Muscle Strength and Mass Adaptations Between High-Load Resistance Training Versus Low-Load Resistance Training Associated with Blood-Flow Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Low-load resistance training (< 50% of one-repetition maximum [1RM]) associated with blood-flow restriction (BFR-RT) has been thought to promote increases in muscle strength and mass. However, it remains unclear if the magnitude of these adaptations is similar to conventional high-load...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:Sports medicine (Auckland) Ročník 48; číslo 2; s. 361 - 378
Hlavní autoři: Lixandrão, Manoel E., Ugrinowitsch, Carlos, Berton, Ricardo, Vechin, Felipe C., Conceição, Miguel S., Damas, Felipe, Libardi, Cleiton A., Roschel, Hamilton
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:angličtina
Vydáno: Cham Springer International Publishing 01.02.2018
Springer Nature B.V
Témata:
Adaptation
Adaptation, Physiological
Humans
Hypertrophy
Load
Medical imaging
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Meta-analysis
Muscle strength
Muscle Strength - physiology
Muscle, Skeletal - blood supply
Muscle, Skeletal - physiology
Musculoskeletal system
Occlusion
Physical training
Pressure
Regional Blood Flow - physiology
Resistance Training - methods
Sports Medicine
Sports training
Strength training
Systematic Review
Weight-Bearing
ISSN:0112-1642, 1179-2035, 1179-2035
On-line přístup:Získat plný text
Tagy: Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
Popis
Shrnutí:Background Low-load resistance training (< 50% of one-repetition maximum [1RM]) associated with blood-flow restriction (BFR-RT) has been thought to promote increases in muscle strength and mass. However, it remains unclear if the magnitude of these adaptations is similar to conventional high-load resistance training (> 65% 1RM; HL-RT). Objective To compare the effects of HL- versus BFR-RT on muscle adaptations using a systematic review and meta-analysis procedure. Methods Studies were identified via electronic databases based on the following inclusion criteria: (a) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular strength; (b) pre- and post-training assessment of muscle hypertrophy; (c) comparison of HL-RT vs. BFR-RT; (d) score ≥ 4 on PEDro scale; (e) means and standard deviations (or standard errors) are reported from absolute values or allow estimation from graphs. If this last criterion was not met, data were directly requested from the authors. Results The main results showed higher increases in muscle strength for HL- as compared with BFR-RT, even when considering test specificity, absolute occlusion pressure, cuff width, and occlusion pressure prescription. Regarding the hypertrophic response, results revealed similar effects between HL- and BFR-RT, regardless of the absolute occlusion pressure, cuff width, and occlusion pressure prescription. Conclusions Based on the present data, maximum muscle strength may be optimized by specific training methods (i.e., HL-RT) while both HL- and BFR-RT seem equally effective in increasing muscle mass. Importantly, BFR-RT is a valid and effective approach for increasing muscle strength in a wide spectrum of ages and physical capacity, although it may seem particularly of interest for those individuals with physical limitations to engage in HL-RT.
Bibliografie:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Feature-3
ObjectType-Evidence Based Healthcare-1
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-4
ISSN:0112-1642
1179-2035
1179-2035
DOI:10.1007/s40279-017-0795-y