Effects of Low-Load Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy Compared with Traditional Resistance Training in Healthy Adults Older Than 60 Years: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials
Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials
PubMed 36556004 · doi:10.3390/jcm11247389
What was done
Authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis searching MEDLINE, PEDro, CINAHL, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and CENTRAL. They evaluated the effects of low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) resistance training compared with traditional high-load (HL) and low-load (LL) resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in healthy adults older than 60 years, including the effect of cuff pressure.
What was found
Fourteen studies were included in the analysis: - HL vs. LL-BFR: HL training resulted in slightly greater muscle strength increases (8 studies; SMD -0.23, 95% CI [-0.41, -0.05]), but no significant difference in muscle hypertrophy (6 studies; SMD 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.38]). - LL-BFR vs. traditional LL: LL-BFR yielded superior increases in strength (7 studies; SMD 0.44, 95% CI [0.28, 0.60]) and hypertrophy (2 studies; SMD 0.51, 95% CI [0.06, 0.96]). - Cuff pressure: Higher cuff pressure enhanced strength gains compared with traditional LL, but not compared with HL training.
Why it matters
LL-BFR offers an effective alternative to traditional heavy lifting in older adults, matching the hypertrophy benefits of high-load training and exceeding traditional low-load regimens.
Limits
The total number of participants is not reported in the abstract. Evidence for hypertrophy in the LL-BFR versus traditional LL comparison is based on only two studies. Long-term functional outcomes, adherence, and adverse events were not detailed.
Cited by
- supports Blood flow restriction training using light loads (20% to 30% 1RM) produces muscle hypertrophy similar to traditional resistance training.