Low-Load Blood-Flow Restriction Exercise to Failure and Nonfailure and Myoelectric Activity: A Meta-Analysis.

Autor:	Cerqueira MS; Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, RN, Brazil., Maciel DG; Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, RN, Brazil., Barboza JAM; Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, RN, Brazil., Centner C; Department of Sport and Sport Science, University of Freiburg, Germany., Lira M; Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, RN, Brazil., Pereira R; Praxisklinik Rennbahn, Muttenz, Switzerland., De Brito Vieira WH; Department of Biological Sciences, Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia (UESB), Jequié, Brazil.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of athletic training [J Athl Train] 2022 Apr 01; Vol. 57 (4), pp. 402-417.
DOI:	10.4085/1062-6050-0603.20
Abstrakt:	Objective: To compare the short- and long-term effects of low-load resistance training with blood-flow restriction (LL-BFR) versus low- (LL-RT) or high- (HL-RT) load resistance training with free blood flow on myoelectric activity and investigate the differences between failure (exercise performed to volitional failure) and nonfailure (exercise not performed to volitional failure) protocols. Data Sources: We identified sources by searching the MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and PEDro electronic databases. Study Selection: We screened the titles and abstracts of 1048 articles using our inclusion criteria. A total of 39 articles were selected for further analysis. Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently assessed the methodologic quality of each study and extracted the data. A meta-analytic approach was used to compute standardized mean differences (SMDs) ± 95% CIs. Subgroup analyses were conducted for both failure and nonfailure protocols. Data Synthesis: The search identified 39 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Regarding the short-term effects, LL-BFR increased muscle excitability compared with LL-RT during nonfailure protocols (SMD = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.34, 0.88), whereas HL-RT increased muscle excitability compared with LL-BFR during failure (SMD = -0.61; 95% CI = -1.01, -0.21) and nonfailure (SMD = -1.13; 95% CI = -1.94, -0.33) protocols. Concerning the long-term effects, LL-BFR increased muscle excitability compared with LL-RT during exercises performed to failure (SMD = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.39, 1.79). Conclusions: Greater short-term muscle excitability levels were observed in LL-BFR than in LL-RT during nonfailure protocols. Conversely, greater muscle excitability was present during HL-RT than LL-BFR, regardless of volitional failure. Furthermore, LL-BFR performed to failure increased muscle excitability in the long term compared with LL-RT. (© by the National Athletic Trainers' Association, Inc.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu