ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Resistance Training , Humans , Resistance Training/methods , Exercise , Hemodynamics , Oxidative Stress , BiomarkersABSTRACT
Oxidative stress induced by exercise has been a research field in constant growth, due to its relationship with the processes of fatigue, decreased production of muscle strength, and its ability to cause damage to the cell. In this context, photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) has emerged as a resource capable of improving performance, while reducing muscle fatigue and muscle damage. To analyze the effects of PBMT about exercise-induced oxidative stress and compare with placebo therapy. DATA SOURCES: Databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, PeDro, and Virtual Health Library, which include Lilacs, Medline, and SciELO, were searched to find published studies. STUDY SELECTION: There was no year or language restriction; randomized clinical trials with healthy subjects that compared the application (before or after exercise) of PBMT to placebo therapy were included. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on the characteristics of the volunteers, study design, intervention parameters, exercise protocol and oxidative stress biomarkers were extracted. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using the PEDro scale and the GRADE system, respectively. RESULTS: Eight studies (n = 140 participants) were eligible for this review, with moderate to excellent methodological quality. In particular, PBMT was able to reduce damage to lipids post exercise (SMD = -0.72, CI 95% -1.42 to -0.02, I2 = 77%, p = 0.04) and proteins (SMD = -0.41, CI 95% -0.65 to -0.16, I2 = 0%, p = 0.001) until 72 h and 96 h, respectively. In addition, it increased the activity of SOD enzymes (SMD = 0.54, CI 95% 0.07 to 1.02, I2 = 42%, p = 0.02) post exercise, 48 and 96 h after irradiation. However, PBMT did not increase CAT activity (MD = 0.18 CI 95% -0.56 to 0.91, I2 = 79%, p = 0.64) post exercise. We did not find any difference in TAC or GPx biomarkers. CONCLUSION: Low to moderate certainty evidence shows that PBMT is a resource that can reduce oxidative damage and increase enzymatic antioxidant activity post exercise. We found evidence to support that one session of PBMT can modulate the redox metabolism.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to compare the effect of photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) and cryotherapy (CRT) on muscle recovery outcomes. These searches were performed in PubMed, PEDro, CENTRAL, and VHL (which includes the Lilacs, Medline, and SciELO database) from inception to June 2021. We included randomized clinical trials involved healthy human volunteers (> 18 years) underwent an intervention of PBMT and CRT, when used in both isolated form post-exercise. Standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval were calculated and pooled in a meta-analysis for synthesis. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed through Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and GRADE system. Four articles (66 participants) with a high to low risk of bias were included. The certainty of evidence was classified as moderate to very low. PBMT was estimated to improve the muscle strength (SMD = 1.73, CI 95% 1.33 to 2.13, I2 = 27%, p < 0.00001), reduce delayed onset muscle soreness (MD: - 25.69%, CI 95% - 34.42 to - 16.97, I2 = 89%, p < 0.00001), and lower the concentration of biomarkers of muscle damage (SMD = - 1.48, CI 95% - 1.93 to - 1.03, I2 = 76%, p < 0,00,001) when compared with CRT. There was no difference in oxidative stress and inflammatory levels. Based on our findings, the use of PBMT in muscle recovery after high-intensity exercise appears to be beneficial, provides a clinically important effect, and seems to be the best option when compared to CRT.
