Blood flow restriction during training for improving the aerobic capacity and sport performance of trained athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Effectiveness of Blood Flow Restriction on Functionality, Quality of Life and Pain in Patients with Neuromusculoskeletal Pathologies: A Systematic Review

“…With regard to the quality of life variable, in the short-term, changes were observed in each of the areas of the Health Questionnaire SF-36, with 10 points in the physical function area, 13 points in bodily pain, foour points in vitality, 13 points in social function, 18 points in emotional role, and 11 points in mental health for the control group whereas the BFR intervention group improved 29 points in the physical role section and six points in general health [38]. However, both groups improved similarly in all sections, which may indicate that aerobic exercise with or without BFR intervention produces the same impact on the subjects' quality of life, although the application of below-average pressures may have influenced the benefits presented by the BFR intervention, such as metabolic stress [2]. Along the same lines, the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29) showed differences in favor of the control group, especially in the motor area, with a change of 10 points, and, in the psychological area, both groups improved equally by three points [38].…”

“…For this category, short-term changes were found in favor of the BFR intervention, with a 49-m difference in the 6-min-walk test [38]. Nevertheless, the BFR intervention and control groups improved regardless of the type of intervention, although the BFR intervention group showed greater benefits, specifically about 17 more meters, suggesting that it is an interesting tool during aerobic exercise, enhancing its main physiological effect [2]. In a similar way, the modified Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT) showed better results in each of the categories for the BFR intervention group, although these data cannot be assumed to be due to the application of this tool [37].…”

“…Regarding the other tests, there was a trend in favor of the BFR intervention, with a 2 s difference with respect to the control group in the Four Square Step Test (FSST), and 4.4 s in the Timed Stair Ascent (TSA) [43]. One possible consequence is the metabolic stress that the study subjects were subjected to with this tool rather than the mechanical stress provided by high loads [2]. However, mechanical stress may also play a role, as the control group did not add any strength exercise compared to the BFR intervention group, which may benefit from specific metabolic responses when performing the low-load exercises [46].…”

“…Second, BFR could be considered as a training adjuvant that in recent years has been used during physical exercise at low intensities during strength training (around 20-40%) or at low or medium intensities during aerobic exercise with the intention of improving cardiopulmonary capacities. In [2], in which cuffs that occlude the proximal part of the extremities can partially reduce arterial flow and fully restrict venous flow of the musculature in order to achieve the same benefits as high-load exercise [2,3]. Several theories attempt to justify the results obtained from BFR intervention.…”

Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Exercise on Muscle Endurance and Aerobic Capacity in Different Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Further research has shown that the higher metabolic/cardiopulmonary adaptive response of endurance training-BFR seems to be associated with the activation of key genes that drive angiogenesis (vascular endothelial growth factor-VEGF and cytochrome oxidase subunit IV) [19,20]. So far, some relevant studies have reviewed the effects of BFR on aerobic capacity [21][22][23][24][25][26], but there is still a lack of understanding of its application in different populations and the overall understanding of the effects of BFR on endurance. In particular, systematic evaluation on the growth of muscle endurance is rare.…”