Wang · PeerJ 2025 · systematic review and meta-analysis · n=41 studies (853 participants)

Effect of blood-flow restricted vs heavy-load resistance training on strength, power, and speed for healthy volunteers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cited 5 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and comparative trials

PubMed 40124607 · doi:10.7717/peerj.19110 · record verified 2026-08-30

What was done

Authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis across SCOPUS, SPORTDiscus, PubMed, Web of Science, and CNKI up to May 13, 2024. Included studies examined healthy populations comparing low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) against high-load resistance (HLR) training on pre- and post-training muscle strength (dynamic, isometric, and isokinetic), muscle power, jump performance, or speed. Study methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale (inclusion required score ≥4) and the GRADE framework.

What was found

Across 41 studies (853 subjects; overall moderate quality), LL-BFR showed a slightly smaller increase in maximal strength compared to HLR (ES = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.31 to -0.06], p < 0.01). No statistically significant differences were observed between LL-BFR and HLR for muscle power (ES = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.33 to 0.24], p > 0.05), jump performance (ES = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.30 to 0.15], p > 0.05), or speed (ES = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.71 to 0.15], p > 0.05). Age, gender, training status, duration, frequency, cuff pressure, and cuff width did not significantly moderate outcomes.

Why it matters

These results establish that low-load blood flow restriction is an effective alternative to heavy-load lifting for power, jump, and speed adaptations, offering a viable option when heavy joint loading is contraindicated or undesirable.

Limits

Findings are limited to healthy cohorts, preventing direct generalization to clinical or rehabilitative settings. The inclusion threshold of PEDro score ≥4 allowed studies of modest quality, and blinding in exercise trials is fundamentally limited. Safety outcomes and long-term durability of adaptations were not reported in the abstract.

Cited by