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.

Acute Effect of Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction on Perceptual Responses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

CONTEXT: Several studies have compared perceptual responses between resistance exercise with blood flow restriction and traditional resistance exercise (non-BFR). However, the results were contradictory. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the effect of RE+BFR versus non-BFR resistance exercise [low-load resistance exercise (LL-RE) or high-load resistance exercise (HL-RE)] on perceptual responses. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed®, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science were searched through August 28, 2021, and again on August 25, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Studies comparing the effect of RE+BFR versus non-BFR resistance exercise on rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and muscle pain/discomfort were considered. Meta-analyses were conducted using the random effects model. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2. DATA EXTRACTION: All data were reviewed and extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. RESULTS: Thirty studies were included in this review. In a fixed repetition scheme, the RPE [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.04; P < 0.01] and discomfort (SMD = 1.10; P < 0.01) were higher in RE+BFR than in non-BFR LL-RE, but similar in sets to voluntary failure. There were no significant differences in RPE in the comparisons between RE+BFR and non-BFR HL-RE; after sensitivity analyses, it was found that the RPE was higher in non-BFR HL-RE in a fixed repetition scheme. In sets to voluntary failure, discomfort was higher in RE+BFR versus non-BFR HL-RE (SMD = 0.95; P < 0. 01); however, in a fixed scheme, the results were similar. CONCLUSION: In sets to voluntary failure, RPE is similar between RE+BFR and non-BFR exercise. In fixed repetition schemes, RE+BFR seems to promote higher RPE than non-BFR LL-RE and less than HL-RE. In sets to failure, discomfort appears to be similar between LL-RE with and without BFR; however, RE+BFR appears to promote greater discomfort than HL-RE. In fixed repetition schemes, the discomfort appears to be no different between RE+BFR and HL-RE, but is lower in non-BFR LL-RE.

Myoelectric Activity and Fatigue in Low-Load Resistance Exercise With Different Pressure of Blood Flow Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Low-load resistance exercise (LL-RE) with blood flow restriction (BFR) promotes increased metabolic response and fatigue, as well as more pronounced myoelectric activity than traditional LL-RE. Some studies have shown that the relative pressure applied during exercise may have an effect on these variables, but existing evidence is contradictory. Purpose: The aim of this study was to systematically review and pool the available evidence on the differences in neuromuscular and metabolic responses at LL-RE with different pressure of BFR. Methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis was reported according to PRISMA items. Searches were performed in the following databases: CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science, until June 15, 2021. Randomized or non-randomized experimental studies that analyzed LL-RE, associated with at least two relative BFR pressures [arterial occlusion pressure (AOP)%], on myoelectric activity, fatigue, or metabolic responses were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for MVC torque (fatigue measure) and myoelectric activity. The quality of evidence was assessed using the PEDro scale. Results: Ten studies were included, all of moderate to high methodological quality. For MVC torque, there were no differences in the comparisons between exercise with 40-50% vs. 80-90% AOP. When analyzing the meta-analysis data, the results indicated differences in comparisons in exercise with 15-20% 1 repetition maximum (1RM), with higher restriction pressure evoking greater MVC torque decline (4 interventions, 73 participants; MD = -5.05 Nm [95%CI = -8.09; -2.01], p = 0.001, I 2 = 0%). For myoelectric activity, meta-analyses indicated a difference between exercise with 40% vs. 60% AOP (3 interventions, 38 participants; SMD = 0.47 [95%CI = 0.02; 0.93], p = 0.04, I2 = 0%), with higher pressure of restriction causing greater myoelectric activity. This result was not identified in the comparisons between 40% vs. 80% AOP. In analysis of studies that adopted pre-defined repetition schemes, differences were found (4 interventions, 52 participants; SMD = 0.58 [95%CI = 0.11; 1.05], p = 0.02, I 2 = 27%). Conclusion: The BFR pressure applied during the LL-RE may affect the magnitude of muscle fatigue and excitability when loads between 15 and 20% of 1RM and predefined repetition protocols (not failure) are prescribed, respectively. Systematic Review Registration: [http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42021229345].

Effect of resistance training with blood flow restriction on muscle damage markers in adults: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this review was to systematically analyze the evidence regarding the occurrence of muscle damage (changes in muscle damage markers) after resistance training with blood flow restriction sessions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA recommendations. Two researchers independently and blindly searched the following electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS and SPORTdicus. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials which analyzed the effect of resistance training with blood flow restriction on muscle damage markers in humans were included. The risk of bias assessment was performed by two blinded and independent researchers using the RoB2 tool. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies involving 352 healthy participants (men, n = 301; women, n = 51) were eligible for this review. The samples in 66.6% of the studies (n = 14) were composed of untrained individuals. All included studies analyzed muscle damage using indirect markers. Most studies had more than one muscle damage marker and Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness was the measure most frequently used. The results for the occurrence of significant changes in muscle damage markers after low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction sessions were contrasting, and the use of a pre-defined repetition scheme versus muscle failure seems to be the determining point for this divergence, mainly in untrained individuals. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the use of sets until failure is seen to be determinant for the occurrence of significant changes in muscle damage markers after low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction sessions, especially in individuals not used to resistance exercise. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Register number: PROSPERO number: CRD42020177119.

Low-level laser therapy combined to functional exercise on treatment of fibromyalgia: a double-blind randomized clinical trial.

This study aims to investigate the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) combined to a functional exercise program on treatment of FM. A double-blind and placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial composed of 22 women divided into two groups: placebo group (functional exercise program associated with placebo phototherapy n = 11) and laser group (same exercise program associated with active phototherapy; n = 11). Each session lasted from 40 to 60 min and was performed three times a week for 8 weeks. Phototherapy (808 nm, 100 mW, 4 J, and 142.85 J/cm2 per point) was bilaterally applied to different points of the quadriceps (8), hamstrings (6), and triceps sural muscles (3) immediately after each exercise session. Pre- and post-intervention evaluations regarding pain (sites, intensity, and threshold), functional performance (balance, functional tests), muscle performance (flexibility and isokinetic variables), depression, and quality of life were conducted. A reduction in pain and improvement in functional and muscular performance, depression, and quality of life were observed in both groups (p < 0.05); however, with no significant differences between them (p > 0.05). In conclusion, the benefic effects of functional exercise were not improved by combination with LLLT.