RESUMO
The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the effects of low-load blood flow restriction training (LL-BFRT) on muscle anabolism and thrombotic biomarkers compared with the effects of traditional LL training and to analyse the changes in these biomarkers in the short and medium term (acute/immediate and after at least 4 weeks of the training programme, respectively). A search was conducted in the following electronic databases from inception to 1 March 2024: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, PEDro, Science Direct, CINHAL, and Scopus. A total of 13 randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 256 healthy older adults (mean (min-max) age 68 (62-71) years, 44.53% female). The outcome measures were muscle anabolism biomarkers and thrombosis biomarkers. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated to compare the outcomes reported by the studies. The overall meta-analysis showed that LL-BFRT produces a large increase in muscle anabolism biomarkers compared with traditional LL training (eight studies; SMD = 0.88 [0.39; 1.37]) and compared with a passive control (four studies; SMD = 0.91 [0.54; 1.29]). LL-BFRT does not produce an increase in thrombotic biomarkers compared with traditional LL training (four studies; SMD = -0.02 [-0.41; 0.36]) or compared with a passive control (two studies; SMD = 0.20 [-0.41; 0.80]). The increase in muscle anabolism biomarkers was large after applying a single session (four studies; SMD = 1.29 [0.18; 2.41]) and moderate after applying a training programme (four studies; SMD = 0.58 [0.09; 1.06]). In conclusion, LL-BFRT increases muscle anabolism biomarkers to a greater extent than traditional LL training (low-quality evidence) or a passive control (moderate-quality evidence) in healthy older adults. This superior anabolic potential of LL-BFRT compared with LL training is sustained in the short to medium term. LL-BFRT is a safe training methodology for older adults, showing moderate-quality evidence of no increase in thrombotic biomarkers compared with traditional LL training.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There is clinical interest in determining the effects of low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy compared with traditional high- and low-load (HL and LL) resistance training in healthy older adults and the influence of LL-BFR training cuff-pressure on these outcomes. METHODS: A search was performed on the MEDLINE, PEDro, CINHAL, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases. RESULTS: The analysis included 14 studies. HL resistance training produces a small increase in muscle strength (eight studies; SMD, -0.23 [-0.41; -0.05]) but not in muscle hypertrophy (six studies; (SMD, 0.08 [-0.22; 0.38]) when compared with LL-BFR resistance training. Compared with traditional LL resistance training, LL-BFR resistance training produces small-moderate increases in muscle strength (seven studies; SMD, 0.44 [0.28; 0.60]) and hypertrophy (two studies; SMD, 0.51 [0.06; 0.96]). There were greater improvements in muscle strength when higher cuff pressures were applied versus traditional LL resistance training but not versus HL resistance training. CONCLUSIONS: LL-BFR resistance training results in lower muscle strength gains than HL resistance training and greater than traditional LL resistance training in healthy adults older than 60 years. LL-BFR resistance training promotes a similar muscle hypertrophy to HL resistance training but is greater than that of traditional LL resistance training. Applying cuff pressures above the limb occlusion pressure could enhance the increases in muscle strength compared with traditional LL resistance training.