血流限制训练对肌肉力量和肥大影响的潜在调节因素:基于与高负荷阻力训练比较的 Meta 分析。

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
Yu Geng, Xueping Wu, Yong Zhang, Meng Zhang
{"title":"血流限制训练对肌肉力量和肥大影响的潜在调节因素:基于与高负荷阻力训练比较的 Meta 分析。","authors":"Yu Geng, Xueping Wu, Yong Zhang, Meng Zhang","doi":"10.1186/s40798-024-00719-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While it has been examined whether there are similar magnitudes of muscle strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low-load resistance training combined with blood-flow restriction training (BFR-RT) and high-load resistance training (HL-RT), some important potential moderators (e.g., age, sex, upper and lower limbs, frequency and duration etc.) have yet to be analyzed further. Furthermore, training status, specificity of muscle strength tests (dynamic versus isometric or isokinetic) and specificity of muscle mass assessments (locations of muscle hypertrophy assessments) seem to exhibit different effects on the results of the analysis. The role of these influencing factors, therefore, remains to be elucidated.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of BFR- versus HL-RT on muscle adaptations, when considering the influence of population characteristics (training status, sex and age), protocol characteristics (upper or lower limbs, duration and frequency) and test specificity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies were identified through database searches based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular strength; (2) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular hypertrophy; (3) comparison of BFR-RT vs. HL-RT; (4) score ≥ 4 on PEDro scale; (5) means and standard deviations (or standard errors) are reported or allow estimation from graphs. In cases where the fifth criterion was not met, the data were requested directly from the authors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The main finding of the present study was that training status was an important influencing factor in the effects of BFR-RT. The trained individuals may gain greater muscle strength and hypertrophy with BFR-RT as compared to HL-RT. However, the results showed that the untrained individuals experienced similar muscle mass gains and superior muscle strength gains in with HL-RT compared to BFR-RT.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to HL-RT, training status is an important factor influencing the effects of the BFR-RT, in which trained can obtain greater muscle strength and hypertrophy gains in BFR-RT, while untrained individuals can obtain greater strength gains and similar hypertrophy in HL-RT.</p>","PeriodicalId":21788,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine - Open","volume":"10 1","pages":"58"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11109065/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Potential Moderators of the Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy: A Meta-analysis Based on a Comparison with High-Load Resistance Training.\",\"authors\":\"Yu Geng, Xueping Wu, Yong Zhang, Meng Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40798-024-00719-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While it has been examined whether there are similar magnitudes of muscle strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low-load resistance training combined with blood-flow restriction training (BFR-RT) and high-load resistance training (HL-RT), some important potential moderators (e.g., age, sex, upper and lower limbs, frequency and duration etc.) have yet to be analyzed further. Furthermore, training status, specificity of muscle strength tests (dynamic versus isometric or isokinetic) and specificity of muscle mass assessments (locations of muscle hypertrophy assessments) seem to exhibit different effects on the results of the analysis. The role of these influencing factors, therefore, remains to be elucidated.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of BFR- versus HL-RT on muscle adaptations, when considering the influence of population characteristics (training status, sex and age), protocol characteristics (upper or lower limbs, duration and frequency) and test specificity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies were identified through database searches based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular strength; (2) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular hypertrophy; (3) comparison of BFR-RT vs. HL-RT; (4) score ≥ 4 on PEDro scale; (5) means and standard deviations (or standard errors) are reported or allow estimation from graphs. In cases where the fifth criterion was not met, the data were requested directly from the authors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The main finding of the present study was that training status was an important influencing factor in the effects of BFR-RT. The trained individuals may gain greater muscle strength and hypertrophy with BFR-RT as compared to HL-RT. However, the results showed that the untrained individuals experienced similar muscle mass gains and superior muscle strength gains in with HL-RT compared to BFR-RT.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to HL-RT, training status is an important factor influencing the effects of the BFR-RT, in which trained can obtain greater muscle strength and hypertrophy gains in BFR-RT, while untrained individuals can obtain greater strength gains and similar hypertrophy in HL-RT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21788,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sports Medicine - Open\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"58\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11109065/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sports Medicine - Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-024-00719-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Medicine - Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-024-00719-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:虽然已经研究了低负荷阻力训练结合血流限制训练(BFR-RT)和高负荷阻力训练(HL-RT)之间的肌肉力量和肥大适应性是否有相似的幅度,但一些重要的潜在调节因素(如年龄、性别、上下肢、频率和持续时间等)仍有待进一步分析。此外,训练状况、肌力测试的特异性(动态与等长或等速)以及肌肉质量评估的特异性(肌肉肥大评估的位置)似乎对分析结果有不同的影响。因此,这些影响因素的作用仍有待阐明:本荟萃分析的目的是在考虑人群特征(训练状况、性别和年龄)、方案特征(上肢或下肢、持续时间和频率)和测试特异性的情况下,比较 BFR-RT 和 HL-RT 对肌肉适应性的影响:根据以下纳入标准,通过数据库搜索确定了相关研究:(1) 训练前和训练后的肌肉力量评估;(2) 训练前和训练后的肌肉肥大评估;(3) BFR-RT 与 HL-RT 的比较;(4) PEDro 量表评分≥4;(5) 报告平均值和标准差(或标准误差)或允许从图表中估算。如果不符合第五项标准,则直接向作者索取数据:本研究的主要发现是,训练状况是影响 BFR-RT 效果的重要因素。与 HL-RT 相比,受过训练的人通过 BFR-RT 可以获得更大的肌肉力量和肥厚。然而,研究结果表明,与 BFR-RT 相比,未经训练的人在 HL-RT 中获得的肌肉质量增长和肌肉力量增长相似:结论:与 HL-RT 相比,训练状况是影响 BFR-RT 效果的一个重要因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Potential Moderators of the Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy: A Meta-analysis Based on a Comparison with High-Load Resistance Training.

Background: While it has been examined whether there are similar magnitudes of muscle strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low-load resistance training combined with blood-flow restriction training (BFR-RT) and high-load resistance training (HL-RT), some important potential moderators (e.g., age, sex, upper and lower limbs, frequency and duration etc.) have yet to be analyzed further. Furthermore, training status, specificity of muscle strength tests (dynamic versus isometric or isokinetic) and specificity of muscle mass assessments (locations of muscle hypertrophy assessments) seem to exhibit different effects on the results of the analysis. The role of these influencing factors, therefore, remains to be elucidated.

Objectives: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of BFR- versus HL-RT on muscle adaptations, when considering the influence of population characteristics (training status, sex and age), protocol characteristics (upper or lower limbs, duration and frequency) and test specificity.

Methods: Studies were identified through database searches based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular strength; (2) pre- and post-training assessment of muscular hypertrophy; (3) comparison of BFR-RT vs. HL-RT; (4) score ≥ 4 on PEDro scale; (5) means and standard deviations (or standard errors) are reported or allow estimation from graphs. In cases where the fifth criterion was not met, the data were requested directly from the authors.

Results: The main finding of the present study was that training status was an important influencing factor in the effects of BFR-RT. The trained individuals may gain greater muscle strength and hypertrophy with BFR-RT as compared to HL-RT. However, the results showed that the untrained individuals experienced similar muscle mass gains and superior muscle strength gains in with HL-RT compared to BFR-RT.

Conclusion: Compared to HL-RT, training status is an important factor influencing the effects of the BFR-RT, in which trained can obtain greater muscle strength and hypertrophy gains in BFR-RT, while untrained individuals can obtain greater strength gains and similar hypertrophy in HL-RT.

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
Sports Medicine - Open
Sports Medicine - Open SPORT SCIENCES-
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
142
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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