低负荷血流量限制训练与高负荷抗阻训练对大学生800米跑步运动员体能表现的影响:一项随机对照试验。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PHYSIOLOGY
Frontiers in Physiology Pub Date : 2025-09-30 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fphys.2025.1678604
Jianhua Yu, Jingyan Yu, Lei Zhao, Yi Yang
{"title":"低负荷血流量限制训练与高负荷抗阻训练对大学生800米跑步运动员体能表现的影响:一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Jianhua Yu, Jingyan Yu, Lei Zhao, Yi Yang","doi":"10.3389/fphys.2025.1678604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-load resistance training (HLRT) is commonly used to enhance performance in 800-m runners but may not always be suitable. Low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training offers similar benefits to HLRT while reducing these issues. This study aimed to compare the effects of traditional HL-RT and low-load BFR training on muscular strength, power, endurance, and running performance of collegiate 800-m runners over an 8-week training program.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 22 participants were randomly divided into HL-RT group (n = 11) and BFR group (n = 11). Physical performance was assessed at three time points: baseline, mid-intervention, and post-intervention. The tests included the 20-m sprint test (T20m), countermovement jump test (CMJ), smith machine full-squat test (to assess V1 load), plantar flexion rate of force development test (PF-RFD), 200-m test (T200m), and 800-m test (T800m).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant time effects were observed for T20m, CMJ, V1 load, PF-RFD, T200m, and T800m (all P < 0.05), and significant interaction effects between time and group was found for V1load (P < 0.05). Post-training comparisons between the HL-RT and BFR groups revealed a significant improvement in V1 load in the HL-RT group (P < 0.05), while no significant differences were found between the groups for the other performance measures. The present results indicate that both HL-RT and BFR training demonstrate positive effects on the muscular strength, power, endurance, and running performance, while HL-RT demonstrate greater gains in muscular power.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Low-load BFR training offers an effective alternative to traditional HL-RT for enhancing competitive performance and key physical attributes in collegiate 800-m runners.</p>","PeriodicalId":12477,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Physiology","volume":"16 ","pages":"1678604"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12518291/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative effects of low-load blood flow restriction training and high-load resistance training on physical performance in college 800-m runners: a randomized control trial.\",\"authors\":\"Jianhua Yu, Jingyan Yu, Lei Zhao, Yi Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fphys.2025.1678604\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-load resistance training (HLRT) is commonly used to enhance performance in 800-m runners but may not always be suitable. Low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training offers similar benefits to HLRT while reducing these issues. This study aimed to compare the effects of traditional HL-RT and low-load BFR training on muscular strength, power, endurance, and running performance of collegiate 800-m runners over an 8-week training program.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 22 participants were randomly divided into HL-RT group (n = 11) and BFR group (n = 11). Physical performance was assessed at three time points: baseline, mid-intervention, and post-intervention. The tests included the 20-m sprint test (T20m), countermovement jump test (CMJ), smith machine full-squat test (to assess V1 load), plantar flexion rate of force development test (PF-RFD), 200-m test (T200m), and 800-m test (T800m).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant time effects were observed for T20m, CMJ, V1 load, PF-RFD, T200m, and T800m (all P < 0.05), and significant interaction effects between time and group was found for V1load (P < 0.05). Post-training comparisons between the HL-RT and BFR groups revealed a significant improvement in V1 load in the HL-RT group (P < 0.05), while no significant differences were found between the groups for the other performance measures. The present results indicate that both HL-RT and BFR training demonstrate positive effects on the muscular strength, power, endurance, and running performance, while HL-RT demonstrate greater gains in muscular power.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Low-load BFR training offers an effective alternative to traditional HL-RT for enhancing competitive performance and key physical attributes in collegiate 800-m runners.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12477,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Physiology\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"1678604\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12518291/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Physiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2025.1678604\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2025.1678604","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:高负荷阻力训练(HLRT)通常用于提高800米跑者的表现,但并不总是合适的。低负荷血流量限制(BFR)训练在减少这些问题的同时提供了与HLRT相似的好处。本研究旨在比较传统HL-RT训练和低负荷BFR训练对大学生800米跑步者肌肉力量、力量、耐力和跑步表现的影响。方法:22例患者随机分为HL-RT组(n = 11)和BFR组(n = 11)。在三个时间点评估身体表现:基线、干预中期和干预后。试验包括20米冲刺试验(T20m)、反动作跳跃试验(CMJ)、史密斯机全深蹲试验(评估V1负荷)、足底屈曲力发展率试验(PF-RFD)、200米试验(T200m)和800米试验(T800m)。结果:T20m、CMJ、V1负荷、PF-RFD、T200m、T800m均存在显著的时间效应(P < 0.05), V1负荷存在显著的时间与组间交互效应(P < 0.05)。HL-RT组与BFR组训练后比较发现,HL-RT组V1负荷显著改善(P < 0.05),而其他性能指标组间无显著差异。目前的研究结果表明,HL-RT和BFR训练对肌肉力量、力量、耐力和跑步表现都有积极的影响,而HL-RT在肌肉力量方面表现出更大的提高。结论:低负荷BFR训练可有效替代传统的HL-RT训练,提高大学生800米运动员的竞技表现和关键身体属性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparative effects of low-load blood flow restriction training and high-load resistance training on physical performance in college 800-m runners: a randomized control trial.

Comparative effects of low-load blood flow restriction training and high-load resistance training on physical performance in college 800-m runners: a randomized control trial.

Background: High-load resistance training (HLRT) is commonly used to enhance performance in 800-m runners but may not always be suitable. Low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training offers similar benefits to HLRT while reducing these issues. This study aimed to compare the effects of traditional HL-RT and low-load BFR training on muscular strength, power, endurance, and running performance of collegiate 800-m runners over an 8-week training program.

Methods: A total of 22 participants were randomly divided into HL-RT group (n = 11) and BFR group (n = 11). Physical performance was assessed at three time points: baseline, mid-intervention, and post-intervention. The tests included the 20-m sprint test (T20m), countermovement jump test (CMJ), smith machine full-squat test (to assess V1 load), plantar flexion rate of force development test (PF-RFD), 200-m test (T200m), and 800-m test (T800m).

Results: Significant time effects were observed for T20m, CMJ, V1 load, PF-RFD, T200m, and T800m (all P < 0.05), and significant interaction effects between time and group was found for V1load (P < 0.05). Post-training comparisons between the HL-RT and BFR groups revealed a significant improvement in V1 load in the HL-RT group (P < 0.05), while no significant differences were found between the groups for the other performance measures. The present results indicate that both HL-RT and BFR training demonstrate positive effects on the muscular strength, power, endurance, and running performance, while HL-RT demonstrate greater gains in muscular power.

Conclusion: Low-load BFR training offers an effective alternative to traditional HL-RT for enhancing competitive performance and key physical attributes in collegiate 800-m runners.

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
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
2608
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Physiology is a leading journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research on the physiology of living systems, from the subcellular and molecular domains to the intact organism, and its interaction with the environment. Field Chief Editor George E. Billman at the Ohio State University Columbus is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信