Resistance Training with Blood Flow Restriction Compared to Traditional Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Mass in Non-Active Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Darío Rodrigo-Mallorca, Andrés Felipe Loaiza-Betancur, Pablo Monteagudo, Cristina Blasco-Lafarga and Iván Chulvi-Medrano
Additional contact information
Darío Rodrigo-Mallorca: UIRFIDE (Sport Performance and Physical Fitness Research Group), Department of Physical and Sports Education, Faculty of Physical Activity and Sports Science, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain
Andrés Felipe Loaiza-Betancur: Department of Physical Education and Sports, Institute of Physical Education, University of Antioquia, Medellín 050010, Colombia
Pablo Monteagudo: UIRFIDE (Sport Performance and Physical Fitness Research Group), Department of Physical and Sports Education, Faculty of Physical Activity and Sports Science, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain
Cristina Blasco-Lafarga: UIRFIDE (Sport Performance and Physical Fitness Research Group), Department of Physical and Sports Education, Faculty of Physical Activity and Sports Science, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain
Iván Chulvi-Medrano: UIRFIDE (Sport Performance and Physical Fitness Research Group), Department of Physical and Sports Education, Faculty of Physical Activity and Sports Science, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 21, 1-20

Abstract: Low-intensity training with blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) has been suggested as an alternative to high-intensity resistance training for the improvement of strength and muscle mass, becoming advisable for individuals who cannot assume such a load. The systematic review aimed to determine the effectiveness of the LI-BFR compared to dynamic high-intensity resistance training on strength and muscle mass in non-active older adults. A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and reportedly followed the PRISMA statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus databases were searched between September and October 2020. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Twelve studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Meta-analysis pointed out significant differences in maximal voluntary contraction (MVC): SMD 0.61, 95% CI [0.10, 1.11], p = 0.02, I 2 71% p < 0.0001; but not in the repetition maximum (RM): SMD 0.07, 95% CI [?0.25, 0.40], p = 0.66, I 2 0% p < 0.53; neither in the muscle mass: SMD 0.62, 95% CI [?0.09, 1.34], p = 0.09, I 2 59% p = 0.05. Despite important limitations such as scarce literature regarding LI-BFR in older adults, the small sample size in most studies, the still differences in methodology and poor quality in many of them, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a positive benefit in non-active older adults. LI- BFR may induce increased muscular strength and muscle mass, at least at a similar extent to that in the traditional high-intensity resistance training.

Keywords: hypertrophy; katsu; low-intensity training; occlusive exercise; sarcopenia (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11441/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11441/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:21:p:11441-:d:668877

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().