The purposes of this systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed literature were to examine the chronic effects of resistance training with blood flow restriction(RT-BFR)on hemodynamics,and to compare these a...The purposes of this systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed literature were to examine the chronic effects of resistance training with blood flow restriction(RT-BFR)on hemodynamics,and to compare these adaptations to those induced by traditional resistance training(TRT)programs in adults(PROSPERO:Registry:CRD42022339510).A literature search was conducted across PubMed,Sports Discus,Scielo,and Web of Science databases.Two independent reviewers extracted study characteristics and blood pressure measures.Risk of bias(The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials[RoB-2]),and the certainty of the evidence(Grading of Recommendations,Assessment,Development,and Evaluation[GRADE])were used.A total of eight studies met the inclusion criteria for systolic(SBP),diastolic(DBP),and mean arterial pressure(MAP).Regarding the comparison of RT-BFR vs.non-exercise,no significant differences favoring the exercise group were observed(p>0.05).However,when compared to TRT,RT-BFR elicited additional improvements on DBP(-3.35;95%CI-6.00 to-0.71;I^(2)=14%;z=-2.48,p=0.01),and on MAP(-3.96;95%CI-7.94 to 0.02;I^(2)=43%;z=-1.95,p=0.05).Results indicate that RT-BFR may elicit a decrease in DBP in comparison with TRT,but the lack of data addressing this topic makes any conclusion speculative.Future research on this topic is warranted.展开更多
基金Giorjines Boppre,is supported by the FCT grant SFRH/BD/146,976/2019The Research Centre in Physical Activity,Health,and Leisure(CIAFEL)is funded by Regional Development Fund(ERDF)through COMPETE and by FCT grant(FCT/UIDB/00617/2020)Laboratory for Integrative and Translational Research in Population Health(ITR)by grant LA/P/0064/2020.
文摘The purposes of this systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed literature were to examine the chronic effects of resistance training with blood flow restriction(RT-BFR)on hemodynamics,and to compare these adaptations to those induced by traditional resistance training(TRT)programs in adults(PROSPERO:Registry:CRD42022339510).A literature search was conducted across PubMed,Sports Discus,Scielo,and Web of Science databases.Two independent reviewers extracted study characteristics and blood pressure measures.Risk of bias(The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials[RoB-2]),and the certainty of the evidence(Grading of Recommendations,Assessment,Development,and Evaluation[GRADE])were used.A total of eight studies met the inclusion criteria for systolic(SBP),diastolic(DBP),and mean arterial pressure(MAP).Regarding the comparison of RT-BFR vs.non-exercise,no significant differences favoring the exercise group were observed(p>0.05).However,when compared to TRT,RT-BFR elicited additional improvements on DBP(-3.35;95%CI-6.00 to-0.71;I^(2)=14%;z=-2.48,p=0.01),and on MAP(-3.96;95%CI-7.94 to 0.02;I^(2)=43%;z=-1.95,p=0.05).Results indicate that RT-BFR may elicit a decrease in DBP in comparison with TRT,but the lack of data addressing this topic makes any conclusion speculative.Future research on this topic is warranted.
