Implementation and Clinical Outcomes of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Adults With Cerebral Palsy: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cerebral palsy (CP) is a congenital neurological disorder that causes musculoskeletal weakness and biomechanical dysfunctions. Strength training guidelines recommend at least 70% of 1-repetition maximum to increase muscle strength and mass. However, individuals with CP may not tolerate such high exercise intensity. Blood flow restriction (BFR) can induce similar gains in strength and muscle mass using loads as low as 20% to 30% 1-repetition maximum. This case series described the safety, feasibility, and acceptability of BFR in adults with CP and examined changes in muscle mass and strength. CASE DESCRIPTION: Three male participants with gross motor function classification system level 3 CP underwent strength training using a periodized 8-week BFR protocol. Outcomes included: Safety via blood pressure during and post-BFR exercises in addition to adverse event tracking; Feasibility via number of support people and time-duration of BFR exercises; Acceptability via rate of perceived discomfort (0-10) and qualitative interviews; Muscle Mass via ultrasonographic cross-sectional area of the quadriceps and hamstring; and Strength via (1) 3-repetition maximum in the leg press and knee extension, (2) isometric knee flexor and extensor muscle force measured with a hand-held dynamometer, and (3) 30-second sit-to-stand test. INTERVENTION: Participants replaced 2 exercises from their current regimen with seated knee extension and leg press exercises using progressively higher limb occlusion pressure and exercise intensity. Limb occlusion pressure started at 60%, by week 4 progressed to 80%, and then remained constant. The exercise repetition scheme progressed from fixed nonfailure repetition sets to failure-based repetition sets. OUTCOMES: Blood pressure never exceeded safety threshold, and no adverse events were reported. The BFR training was time-consuming and resource-intensive, but well-tolerated by participants (rate of perceived discomfort with a mean value of 5.8, 100% protocol adherence). Strength, as measured by 3-repetition maximum testing and 30-second sit-to-stand test, increased, but isometric muscle force and muscle mass changes were inconsistent. DISCUSSION: Blood flow restriction may be an effective means to increase strength in adults with CP who cannot tolerate high-intensity resistance training. Future research should compare BFR to traditional strength training and investigate mediators of strength changes in this population. VIDEO ABSTRACT AVAILABLE: for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A473).

Hypoalgesia and Conditioned Pain Modulation in Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise.

We compared the magnitude of exercise-induced hypoalgesia and conditioned pain modulation between blood-flow restriction (BFR) resistance exercise (RE) and moderate-intensity RE. Twenty-five asymptomatic participants performed unilateral leg press in two visits. For moderate-intensity RE, subjects exercised at 50% 1RM without BFR, whereas BFR RE exercised at 30% 1RM with a cuff inflated to 60% limb occlusion pressure. Exercise-induced hypoalgesia was quantified by pressure pain threshold changes before and after RE. Conditioned pain modulation was tested using cold water as the conditioning stimulus and mechanical pressure as the test stimulus and quantified as pressure pain threshold change. Difference in conditioned pain modulation pre- to post-RE was then calculated. The differences of RE on pain modulations were compared using paired t-tests. Pearson's r was used to examine the correlation between exercise-induced hypoalgesia and changes in conditioned pain modulation. We found greater hypoalgesia with BFR RE compared to moderate-intensity RE (p=0.008). Significant moderate correlations were found between exercise-induced hypoalgesia and changes in conditioned pain modulation (BFR: r=0.63, moderate-intensity: r=0.72). BFR RE has favorable effects on pain modulation in healthy adults and the magnitude of exercise-induced hypoalgesia is positively correlated with conditioned pain modulation activation.

Autoregulated and Non-Autoregulated Blood Flow Restriction on Acute Arterial Stiffness.

This study aimed to investigate the acute effects of autoregulated and non-autoregulated applied pressures during blood flow restriction resistance exercise to volitional fatigue on indices of arterial stiffness using the Delfi Personalized Tourniquet System. Following a randomized autoregulated or non-autoregulated blood flow restriction familiarization session, 20 physically active adults (23±5 years; 7 females) participated in three randomized treatment-order sessions with autoregulated and non-autoregulated and no blood flow restriction training. Participants performed four sets of dumbbell wall squats to failure using 20% of one repetition maximum. Blood flow restriction was performed with 60% of supine limb occlusion pressure. Testing before and post-session included an ultrasonic scan of the carotid artery, applanation tonometry, and blood pressure acquisition.Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity increased in the non-autoregulated and no blood flow restriction training groups following exercise while carotid-radial pulse wave velocity increased in the no blood flow restriction training group (all p<0.05). Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity exhibited an interaction effect between autoregulated and non-autoregulated blood flow restriction in favor of autoregulated blood flow restriction (p<0.05). Autoregulated blood flow restriction training does not influence indices of arterial stiffness while non-autoregulated and no blood flow restriction training increases central stiffness.

Current Implementation and Barriers to Using Blood Flow Restriction Training: Insights From a Survey of Allied Health Practitioners.

ABSTRACT: Scott, BR, Marston, KJ, Owens, J, Rolnick, N, and Patterson, SD. Current implementation and barriers to using blood flow restriction training: Insights from a survey of allied health practitioners. J Strength Cond Res 38(3): 481-490, 2024-This study investigated the use of blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise by practitioners working specifically with clinical or older populations, and the barriers preventing some practitioners from prescribing BFR. An online survey was disseminated globally to allied health practitioners, with data from 397 responders included in analyses. Responders who had prescribed BFR exercise ( n = 308) completed questions about how they implement this technique. Those who had not prescribed BFR exercise ( n = 89) provided information on barriers to using this technique, and a subset of these responders ( n = 22) completed a follow-up survey to investigate how these barriers could be alleviated. Most practitioners prescribe BFR exercise for musculoskeletal rehabilitation clients (91.6%), with the BFR cuff pressure typically relative to arterial occlusion pressure (81.1%) and implemented with resistance (96.8%) or aerobic exercise (42.9%). Most practitioners screen for contraindications (68.2%), although minor side effects, including muscle soreness (65.8%), are common. The main barriers preventing some practitioners from using BFR are lack of equipment (60.2%), insufficient education (55.7%), and safety concerns (31.8%). Suggestions to alleviate these barriers included developing educational resources about the safe application and benefits of BFR exercise ( n = 20) that are affordable ( n = 3) and convenient ( n = 4). These results indicate that BFR prescription for clinical and older cohorts mainly conforms with current guidelines, which is important considering the potentially increased risk for adverse events in these cohorts. However, barriers still prevent broader utility of BFR training, although some may be alleviated through well-developed educational offerings to train practitioners in using BFR exercise.

Effect of High-Intensity Interval Exercise versus Continuous Low-Intensity Aerobic Exercise with Blood Flow Restriction on Psychophysiological Responses: A Randomized Crossover Study.

This study compared the effect of continuous low-intensity aerobic exercise with blood flow restriction (LI-AE-BFR) versus high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE), matching total external mechanical work between conditions, on perceptual (exertion, pain, affective and pleasure) and physiological responses (heart rate [HR], blood lactate [BL] and muscle fatigue). Ten healthy untrained men (25.6 ± 3.78 years old; 75.02 ± 12.02 kg; 172.2 ± 6.76 cm; 24.95 ± 3.16 kg/m²) completed three visits to the laboratory. In visit 1, anthropometry, blood pressure and peak running velocity on the treadmill were measured. In visits 2 and 3, participants were randomly assigned to HIIE or LI-AE-BFR, both in treadmill. HIIE consisted of 10 one-minute stimuli at 80% of peak running velocity interspersed with one-minute of passive recovery. LI-AE-BFR consisted of 20-minutes of continuous walking at 40% of peak running velocity with bilateral cuffs inflated to 50% of arterial occlusion pressure. BL and maximum isometric voluntary contraction (MIVC - fatigue measure) were measured pre- and immediately post-exercise. HR, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and rating of perceived pain (RPP) were recorded after each stimulus in HIIE and every two minutes in LI-AE-BFR. Affective response to the session, pleasure, and future intention to exercise (FIE) were assessed 10 minutes after the intervention ended. Increases in BL concentrations were greater in HIIE (p = 0.028; r = 0.51). No effects time or condition were reported for MIVC. HR was higher in HIIE at all analyzed time points (p < 0.001; d = 3.1 to 5.2). RPE did not differ between conditions (p > 0.05), while average session RPP was higher in LI-AE-BFR (p = 0.036; r = 0.46). Affective positive response (p = 0.019; d = 0.9) and FIE (p = 0.013; d = 0.97) were significantly higher in HIIE. Therefore, HIIE elicited higher physiological stress, positive affective response, and intention to engage in future exercise bouts compared to LI-AE-BFR.

Investigating the autoregulation of applied blood flow restriction training pressures in healthy, physically active adults: an intervention study evaluating acute training responses and safety.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of autoregulated (AUTO) and non-autoregulated (NAUTO) blood flow restriction (BFR) application on adverse effects, performance, cardiovascular and perceptual responses during resistance exercise. METHODS: Fifty-six healthy participants underwent AUTO and NAUTO BFR resistance exercise in a randomised crossover design using a training session with fixed amount of repetitions and a training session until volitional failure. Cardiovascular parameters, rate of perceived effort (RPE), rate of perceived discomfort (RPD) and number of repetitions were investigated after training, while the presence of delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) was verified 24 hours post-session. Adverse events during or following training were also monitored. RESULTS: AUTO outperformed NAUTO in the failure protocol (p<0.001), while AUTO scored significantly lower for DOMS 24 hours after exercise (p<0.001). Perceptions of effort and discomfort were significantly higher in NAUTO compared with AUTO in both fixed (RPE: p=0.014, RPD: p<0.001) and failure protocol (RPE: p=0.028, RPD: p<0.001). Sixteen adverse events (7.14%) were recorded, with a sevenfold incidence in the fixed protocol for NAUTO compared with AUTO (NAUTO: n=7 vs AUTO: n=1) and five (NAUTO) vs three (AUTO) adverse events in the failure protocol. No significant differences in cardiovascular parameters were found comparing both pressure applications. CONCLUSION: Autoregulation appears to enhance safety and performance in both fixed and failure BFR-training protocols. AUTO BFR training did not seem to affect cardiovascular stress differently, but was associated with lower DOMS, perceived effort and discomfort compared with NAUTO. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04996680.

Acute Responses in Blood Flow Restriction Low-intensity Aerobic Training: A Meta-analysis.

The purpose was to determine the effect low-intensity training with blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) versus high-intensity aerobic training (HIT) on acute physiological and perceptual responses. The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, National Library of Medicine, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science databases and the reference list of eligible studies were consulted to identify randomized experimental studies, published until July 4, 2022, that analyzed physiological or perceptual responses between LI-BFR versus HIT in healthy young individuals. Mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used as effect estimates and random effects models were applied in all analyses. Twelve studies were included in this review. During exercise sessions, HIT promoted higher values of heart rate (MD=28.9 bpm; p<0.00001; I 2 =79%), oxygen consumption (SMD=4.01; p<0.00001; I 2 =83%), ventilation (MD=48.03 l/min; p=0.0001; I 2 =97%), effort (SMD=1.54; p=0.003; I 2 =90%) and blood lactate (MD=3.85 mmol/L; p=0.002; I 2 =97%). Perception of pain/discomfort was lower in HIT (SMD=-1.71; p=0.04; I 2 =77.5%). In conclusion, LI-BFR promotes less pronounced physiological responses than HIT but with greater perception of pain.

Blood Flow Restriction Training in Clinical Rehabilitation: Occlusion Pressure Methods Relative to the Limb Occlusion Pressure.

CONTEXT: Resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) has increased in clinical rehabilitation due to the substantial benefits observed in augmenting muscle mass and strength using low loads. However, there is a great variability of training pressures for clinical populations as well as methods to estimate it. The aim of this study was to estimate the percentage of maximal BFR that could result by applying different methodologies based on arbitrary or individual occlusion levels using a cuff width between 9 and 13 cm. DESIGN: A secondary analysis was performed on the combined databases of 2 previous larger studies using BFR training. METHODS: To estimate these percentages, the occlusion values needed to reach complete BFR (100% limb occlusion pressure [LOP]) were estimated by Doppler ultrasound. Seventy-five participants (age 24.32 [4.86] y; weight: 78.51 [14.74] kg; height: 1.77 [0.09] m) were enrolled in the laboratory study for measuring LOP in the thigh, arm, or calf. RESULTS: When arbitrary values of restriction are applied, a supra-occlusive LOP between 120% and 190% LOP may result. Furthermore, the application of 130% resting brachial systolic blood pressure creates a similar occlusive stimulus as 100% LOP. CONCLUSIONS: Methods using 100 mm Hg and the resting brachial systolic blood pressure could represent the safest application prescriptions as they resulted in applied pressures between 60% and 80% LOP. One hundred thirty percent of the resting brachial systolic blood pressure could be used to indirectly estimate 100% LOP at cuff widths between 9 and 13 cm. Finally, methodologies that use standard values of 200 and, 300 mm Hg far exceed LOP and may carry additional risk during BFR exercise.

Low-intensity resistance exercise with blood flow restriction and arterial stiffness in humans: A systematic review.

Low-intensity resistance exercise with blood flow restriction exercise is an emerging type of exercise recognition worldwide. This systematic review evaluated the effects of low-intensity resistance exercise performed with concurrent blood flow restriction (LIRE-BFR) on acute and chronic measures of arterial stiffness in humans. A systematic search in six healthcare science databases and reference lists was conducted. Data selected for primary analysis consisted of post-intervention changes in arterial stiffness markers. This systematic review included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials of LIRE-BFR in humans. 156 articles were initially identified, 15 of which met inclusion criteria. Ten studies were excluded because they did not match predefined arterial stiffness markers. Thus, five articles were included in this review: two acute studies (N = 39 individuals, age = 20-30 years old, 30.8% women and 69.2% men) and three longitudinal studies (N = 51 individuals, age = 24-86-years old, 41.2% women and 58.8% men). Acute LIRE-BFR demonstrated both positive and negative effects on arterial stiffness in healthy young people. In contrast, longitudinal studies reported neutral effects in healthy young and older people. In conclusion, LIRE-BFR applied to the upper and lower limbs may acutely induce increases in central blood pressure and pulse wave velocity in healthy young people, whereas LIRE-BFR for the lower limbs may elicit positive effects related to indirect markers of arterial stiffness. Moreover, longitudinal LIRE-BFR studies showed no changes in arterial stiffness in young and older people. Hence, LIRE-BFR should be prescribed with a degree of caution to avoid non-intended responses in arterial stiffness markers in humans.

Frequentist, Bayesian Analysis and Complementary Statistical Tools for Geriatric and Rehabilitation Fields: Are Traditional Null-Hypothesis Significance Testing Methods Sufficient?

Null hypothesis significant testing (NHST) is the dominant statistical approach in the geriatric and rehabilitation fields. However, NHST is routinely misunderstood or misused. In this case, the findings from clinical trials would be taken as evidence of no effect, when in fact, a clinically relevant question may have a "non-significant" p-value. Conversely, findings are considered clinically relevant when significant differences are observed between groups. To assume that p-value is not an exclusive indicator of an association or the existence of an effect, researchers should be encouraged to report other statistical analysis approaches as Bayesian analysis and complementary statistical tools alongside the p-value (eg, effect size, confidence intervals, minimal clinically important difference, and magnitude-based inference) to improve interpretation of the findings of clinical trials by presenting a more efficient and comprehensive analysis. However, the focus on Bayesian analysis and secondary statistical analyses does not mean that NHST is less important. Only that, to observe a real intervention effect, researchers should use a combination of secondary statistical analyses in conjunction with NHST or Bayesian statistical analysis to reveal what p-values cannot show in the geriatric and rehabilitation studies (eg, the clinical importance of 1kg increase in handgrip strength in the intervention group of long-lived older adults compared to a control group). This paper provides potential insights for improving the interpretation of scientific data in rehabilitation and geriatric fields by utilizing Bayesian and secondary statistical analyses to better scrutinize the results of clinical trials where a p-value alone may not be appropriate to determine the efficacy of an intervention.

A quasi-experimental study on the energy expenditure, exercise intensity, and rating of perceived exertion of a male bodybuilding posing training.

This study aimed to evaluate the intensity of posing training in male bodybuilders by comparing it to vigorous intensity parameters and examining the effects of stimulant usage and preparation phases. Specifically, it compared posing training to established vigorous intensity benchmarks using Metabolic Equivalents (METs) and heart rate (HR) responses and assessed differences between athletes using stimulants versus those not using stimulants, as well as during peak week versus other preparation phases. Fifteen male bodybuilding athletes (mean age: 32.07 ± 7.82 years; mean body mass: 92.89 ± 9.06 kg; mean height: 1.76 ± 0.05 m; mean BMI: 29.78 ± 2.24 kg/m²) completed four compulsory posing sets. Findings demonstrated that posing training can be classified as vigorous intensity using METs (mean difference of -0.50 METs, p = 0.067, ES = -0.51) and maximum HR (mean difference of 14.55 bpm, p = 0.009, ES = 0.79) compared to the established values of 6.0 METs and 77% vigorous intensity of %HRmax. Additionally, athletes using stimulants exhibited higher ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) of 2.20 arbitrary units (p = 0.008) and maximum HR (mean difference of 24.37 bpm, p = 0.005, ES = 0.79) compared to those not using stimulants. During peak week, athletes showed higher RPE of 2.38 arbitrary units (p = 0.004) and maximum HR (mean difference of 14.55 bpm, p = 0.009, ES = 0.79) compared to other preparation phases. These results indicate that bodybuilding posing training meets the criteria for vigorous exercise intensity and that stimulant use and peak week significantly affect physiological responses and perceived exertion.

Blood pressure responsiveness to resistance training in the hypertensive older adult: a randomized controlled study.

Different lifestyle changes have been employed to improve clinical hypertension. However, there is scarce evidence on the blood pressure responsiveness to resistance training (RT) in hypertensive older adults. Consequently, little is known about some participants clinically reducing blood pressure and others not. Thus, we investigate the effects and responsiveness of RT on blood pressure in hypertensive older adults. We secondarily evaluated the biochemical risk factors for cardiovascular disease and functional performance. Older participants with hypertension were randomly assigned into RT (n = 27) and control group (n = 25). Blood pressure, functional performance (timed up and go, handgrip strength, biceps curl and sit-to-stand), fasting glucose, and lipid profiles were evaluated preintervention and postintervention. The statistic was performed in a single-blind manner, the statistician did not know who was the control and RT. RT was effective in reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP) (pre 135.7 ±â€…14.7; post 124.7 ±â€…11.0; P  < 0.001) and the responses to RT stimuli varied noticeably between hypertensive older adults after 12 weeks. For example, 13 and 1 responders displayed a minimal clinical important difference for SBP attenuation (10.9 mmHg) in the RT and control groups, respectively. RT improved the functional performance of older people with hypertension, while no differences were found in biochemical parameters (triglycerides, HDL, LDL, fasting glucose) after 12 weeks. In conclusion, responses to RT stimuli varied noticeably between hypertensive individuals and RT was effective in reducing SBP.

Body position and cuff size influence lower limb arterial occlusion pressure and its predictors: implications for standardizing the pressure applied in training with blood flow restriction.

Background: Arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) is a relevant measurement for individualized prescription of exercise with blood flow restriction (BFRE). Therefore, it is important to consider factors that may influence this measure. Purpose: This study aimed to compare lower limb AOP (LL-AOP) measured with 11 cm (medium) and 18 cm (large) cuffs, in different body positions, and explore the predictors for each of the LL-AOP measurements performed. This information may be useful for future studies that seek to develop approaches to improve the standardization of pressure adopted in BFRE, including proposals for equations to estimate LL-AOP. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study. Fifty-one healthy volunteers (males, n = 25, females, n = 26; Age: 18-40 years old) underwent measurement of thigh circumference (TC), brachial blood pressure, followed by assessments of LL-AOP with medium and large cuffs in positions supine, sitting and standing positions. Results: The large cuff required less external pressure (mmHg) to elicit arterial occlusion in all three-body positions when compared to the medium cuff (p < 0.001). The LL-AOP was significantly lower in the supine position, regardless of the cuff used (p < 0.001). Systolic blood pressure was the main predictor of LL-AOP in the large cuff, while TC was the main predictor of LL-AOP with the medium cuff. Body position influenced strength of the LL-AOP predictors. Conclusion: Our results indicate that LL-AOP and its predictors are substantially influenced by body position and cuff width. Therefore, these variables should be considered when standardizing the pressure prescribed in BFRE.

Concerns about the application of resistance exercise with blood-flow restriction and thrombosis risk in hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis (HD) per se is a risk factor for thrombosis. Considering the growing body of evidence on blood-flow restriction (BFR) exercise in HD patients, identification of possible risk factors related to the prothrombotic agent D-dimer is required for the safety and feasibility of this training model. The aim of the present study was to identify risk factors associated with higher D-dimer levels and to determine the acute effect of resistance exercise (RE) with BFR on this molecule. METHODS: Two hundred and six HD patients volunteered for this study (all with a glomerular filtration rate of <15 mL/min/1.73 m2). The RE + BFR session consisted of 50% arterial occlusion pressure during 50 min sessions of HD (intradialytic exercise). RE repetitions included concentric and eccentric lifting phases (each lasting 2 s) and were supervised by a strength and conditioning specialist. RESULTS: Several variables were associated with elevated levels of D-dimer, including higher blood glucose, citrate use, recent cardiovascular events, recent intercurrents, higher inflammatory status, catheter as vascular access, older patients (>70 years old), and HD vintage. Furthermore, RE + BFR significantly increases D-dimer after 4 h. Patients with borderline baseline D-dimer levels (400-490 ng/mL) displayed increased risk of elevating D-dimer over the normal range (≥500 ng/mL). CONCLUSION: These results identified factors associated with a heightened prothrombotic state and may assist in the screening process for HD patients who wish to undergo RE + BFR. D-dimer and/or other fibrinolysis factors should be assessed at baseline and throughout the protocol as a precautionary measure to maximize safety during RE + BFR.

Beneath the cuff: Often overlooked and under-reported blood flow restriction device features and their potential impact on practice-A review of the current state of the research.

Training with blood flow restriction (BFR) has been shown to be a useful technique to improve muscle hypertrophy, muscle strength and a host of other physiological benefits in both healthy and clinical populations using low intensities [20%-30% 1-repetition maximum (1RM) or <50% maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max)]. However, as BFR training is gaining popularity in both practice and research, there is a lack of awareness for potentially important design characteristics and features associated with BFR cuff application that may impact the acute and longitudinal responses to training as well as the safety profile of BFR exercise. While cuff width and cuff material have been somewhat addressed in the literature, other cuff design and features have received less attention. This manuscript highlights additional cuff design and features and hypothesizes on their potential to impact the response and safety profile of BFR. Features including the presence of autoregulation during exercise, the type of bladder system used, the shape of the cuff, the set pressure versus the interface pressure, and the bladder length will be addressed as these variables have the potential to alter the responses to BFR training. As more devices enter the marketplace for consumer purchase, investigations specifically looking at their impact is warranted. We propose numerous avenues for future research to help shape the practice of BFR that may ultimately enhance efficacy and safety using a variety of BFR technologies.

An Updated Panorama of Blood-Flow-Restriction Methods.

BACKGROUND: Exercise with blood-flow restriction (BFR) is being increasingly used by practitioners working with athletic and clinical populations alike. Most early research combined BFR with low-load resistance training and consistently reported increased muscle size and strength without requiring the heavier loads that are traditionally used for unrestricted resistance training. However, this field has evolved with several different active and passive BFR methods emerging in recent research. PURPOSE: This commentary aims to synthesize the evolving BFR methods for cohorts ranging from healthy athletes to clinical or load-compromised populations. In addition, real-world considerations for practitioners are highlighted, along with areas requiring further research. CONCLUSIONS: The BFR literature now incorporates several active and passive methods, reflecting a growing implementation of BFR in sport and allied health fields. In addition to low-load resistance training, BFR is being combined with high-load resistance exercise, aerobic and anaerobic energy systems training of varying intensities, and sport-specific activities. BFR is also being applied passively in the absence of physical activity during periods of muscle disuse or rehabilitation or prior to exercise as a preconditioning or performance-enhancement technique. These various methods have been reported to improve muscular development; cardiorespiratory fitness; functional capacities; tendon, bone, and vascular adaptations; and physical and sport-specific performance and to reduce pain sensations. However, in emerging BFR fields, many unanswered questions remain to refine best practice.

Acute effect of low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction on oxidative stress biomarkers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this review was to analyze the acute effects of low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (LLE-BFR) on oxidative stress markers in healthy individuals in comparison with LLE or high-load resistance exercise (HLRE) without BFR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. These searches were performed in CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL and Virtual Health Library- VHL, which includes Lilacs, Medline and SciELO. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed through the PEDro scale and GRADE system, respectively. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized clinical trials were included in this review (total n = 158 subjects). Results showed lower post-exercise damage to lipids (SMD = -0.95 CI 95%: -1.49 to -0. 40, I2 = 0%, p = 0.0007), proteins (SMD = -1.39 CI 95%: -2.11 to -0.68, I2 = 51%, p = 0.0001) and redox imbalance (SMD = -0.96 CI 95%: -1.65 to -0.28, I2 = 0%, p = 0.006) in favor of LLRE-BFR compared to HLRE. HLRE presents higher post-exercise superoxide dismutase activity but in the other biomarkers and time points, no significant differences between conditions were observed. For LLRE-BFR and LLRE, we found no difference between the comparisons performed at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence from randomized trials, providing very low or low certainty of evidence, this review demonstrates that LLRE-BFR promotes less oxidative stress when compared to HLRE but no difference in levels of oxidative damage biomarkers and endogenous antioxidants between LLRE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Register number: PROSPERO number: CRD42020183204.