在健康成年人中进行中等至高负荷阻力训练并限制血流的效果:系统综述

Dr Isaac Selva Raj, Dr Kieran Marston, Mr James Mckee, Ms Kristen De Marco, Mr Michael Beere, Prof Ken Nosaka, P. J. Peiffer, Dr Brook Galna, Brendan Scott
{"title":"在健康成年人中进行中等至高负荷阻力训练并限制血流的效果:系统综述","authors":"Dr Isaac Selva Raj, Dr Kieran Marston, Mr James Mckee, Ms Kristen De Marco, Mr Michael Beere, Prof Ken Nosaka, P. J. Peiffer, Dr Brook Galna, Brendan Scott","doi":"10.31189/2165-7629-13-s2.390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Low-load resistance training (RT) with blood flow restriction (BFR; 20–40% of 1-repetition maximum [1RM]) increases muscle mass and strength comparably to unrestricted high-load RT. As healthy populations are not limited to low-loads, some researchers have also examined whether the adaptations to high-load RT could be enhanced with BFR, though results are inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to investigate whether moderate to high-load resistance training (M-HL RT) with BFR increases muscle mass or strength more than the equivalent training without BFR.\n \n \n \n Studies involving M-HL RT (≥60% 1RM) with BFR applied during exercise sets or rest intervals were included. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, ProQuest Central, and Google Scholar. Two researchers independently screened the titles and abstracts for eligibility based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full texts of included studies were then independently screened by two researchers. Conflicts were resolved by a third researcher. Following screening, study and participant characteristics, intervention protocol for each group and outcome measures were extracted for each included study.\n \n \n \n Ten studies met the criteria for inclusion in this review. All included studies measured muscle strength, with only three reporting greater strength increases after M-HL RT with BFR compared to equivalent training without BFR. Five studies assessed muscle mass, with four reporting similar increases after M-HL RT with and without BFR. One observed a smaller increase in mass after M-HL RT with BFR than without.\n \n \n \n Most studies did not observe additional benefit of applying BFR during M-HL RT for muscle strength or mass. Studies which did report benefits of BFR may be limited by methodological issues, impacting the applicability of their findings. Overall, this review does not support using BFR during M-HL RT for additional improvements in muscle strength or mass.\n","PeriodicalId":92070,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical exercise physiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE EFFECTS OF MODERATE TO HIGH-LOAD RESISTANCE TRAINING WITH BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION IN HEALTHY ADULTS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW\",\"authors\":\"Dr Isaac Selva Raj, Dr Kieran Marston, Mr James Mckee, Ms Kristen De Marco, Mr Michael Beere, Prof Ken Nosaka, P. J. Peiffer, Dr Brook Galna, Brendan Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.31189/2165-7629-13-s2.390\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n Low-load resistance training (RT) with blood flow restriction (BFR; 20–40% of 1-repetition maximum [1RM]) increases muscle mass and strength comparably to unrestricted high-load RT. As healthy populations are not limited to low-loads, some researchers have also examined whether the adaptations to high-load RT could be enhanced with BFR, though results are inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to investigate whether moderate to high-load resistance training (M-HL RT) with BFR increases muscle mass or strength more than the equivalent training without BFR.\\n \\n \\n \\n Studies involving M-HL RT (≥60% 1RM) with BFR applied during exercise sets or rest intervals were included. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, ProQuest Central, and Google Scholar. Two researchers independently screened the titles and abstracts for eligibility based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full texts of included studies were then independently screened by two researchers. Conflicts were resolved by a third researcher. Following screening, study and participant characteristics, intervention protocol for each group and outcome measures were extracted for each included study.\\n \\n \\n \\n Ten studies met the criteria for inclusion in this review. All included studies measured muscle strength, with only three reporting greater strength increases after M-HL RT with BFR compared to equivalent training without BFR. Five studies assessed muscle mass, with four reporting similar increases after M-HL RT with and without BFR. One observed a smaller increase in mass after M-HL RT with BFR than without.\\n \\n \\n \\n Most studies did not observe additional benefit of applying BFR during M-HL RT for muscle strength or mass. Studies which did report benefits of BFR may be limited by methodological issues, impacting the applicability of their findings. Overall, this review does not support using BFR during M-HL RT for additional improvements in muscle strength or mass.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":92070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical exercise physiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical exercise physiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31189/2165-7629-13-s2.390\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical exercise physiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31189/2165-7629-13-s2.390","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

限制血流的低负荷阻力训练(BFR;20-40% 的单次重复最大负重[1RM])与无限制的高负荷阻力训练相比,可增加肌肉质量和力量。由于健康人群并不局限于低负荷,一些研究人员还研究了是否可以通过 BFR 增强对高负荷 RT 的适应,但结果并不一致。因此,我们进行了一项系统性综述,以研究与不使用阻力阻尼的同等训练相比,使用阻力阻尼的中高负荷阻力训练(M-HL RT)是否更能增加肌肉质量或力量。 纳入的研究涉及在运动组或休息间歇期间应用 BFR 的中高负荷阻力训练(≥60% 1RM)。搜索了以下数据库:PubMed、Web of Science、Scopus、ScienceDirect、ProQuest Central 和 Google Scholar。两名研究人员根据纳入和排除标准独立筛选了研究的标题和摘要。然后由两名研究人员独立筛选纳入研究的全文。如有冲突,则由第三位研究人员解决。筛选后,提取每项纳入研究的研究和参与者特征、各组干预方案和结果测量指标。 有 10 项研究符合纳入本综述的标准。所有纳入的研究都对肌肉力量进行了测量,其中只有三项研究报告称,与不进行BFR的同等训练相比,进行M-HL RT和BFR训练后肌肉力量的增加幅度更大。五项研究对肌肉质量进行了评估,其中四项研究报告称,进行 M-HL RT 和不进行 BFR 后,肌肉质量的增加幅度相似。其中一项研究观察到,在进行带 BFR 的 M-HL RT 后,肌肉质量的增加幅度小于不进行 BFR 的情况。 大多数研究没有观察到在 M-HL RT 期间使用 BFR 对肌肉力量或质量有额外的益处。确实报告了 BFR 的益处的研究可能受到方法学问题的限制,影响了研究结果的适用性。总体而言,本综述不支持在 M-HL RT 期间使用 BFR 来额外改善肌肉力量或质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
THE EFFECTS OF MODERATE TO HIGH-LOAD RESISTANCE TRAINING WITH BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION IN HEALTHY ADULTS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Low-load resistance training (RT) with blood flow restriction (BFR; 20–40% of 1-repetition maximum [1RM]) increases muscle mass and strength comparably to unrestricted high-load RT. As healthy populations are not limited to low-loads, some researchers have also examined whether the adaptations to high-load RT could be enhanced with BFR, though results are inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to investigate whether moderate to high-load resistance training (M-HL RT) with BFR increases muscle mass or strength more than the equivalent training without BFR. Studies involving M-HL RT (≥60% 1RM) with BFR applied during exercise sets or rest intervals were included. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, ProQuest Central, and Google Scholar. Two researchers independently screened the titles and abstracts for eligibility based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full texts of included studies were then independently screened by two researchers. Conflicts were resolved by a third researcher. Following screening, study and participant characteristics, intervention protocol for each group and outcome measures were extracted for each included study. Ten studies met the criteria for inclusion in this review. All included studies measured muscle strength, with only three reporting greater strength increases after M-HL RT with BFR compared to equivalent training without BFR. Five studies assessed muscle mass, with four reporting similar increases after M-HL RT with and without BFR. One observed a smaller increase in mass after M-HL RT with BFR than without. Most studies did not observe additional benefit of applying BFR during M-HL RT for muscle strength or mass. Studies which did report benefits of BFR may be limited by methodological issues, impacting the applicability of their findings. Overall, this review does not support using BFR during M-HL RT for additional improvements in muscle strength or mass.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信