Cargando…

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

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 effec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rodrigo-Mallorca, Darío, Loaiza-Betancur, Andrés Felipe, Monteagudo, Pablo, Blasco-Lafarga, Cristina, Chulvi-Medrano, Iván
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8583588/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34769957
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111441
_version_ 1784597239869472768
author Rodrigo-Mallorca, Darío
Loaiza-Betancur, Andrés Felipe
Monteagudo, Pablo
Blasco-Lafarga, Cristina
Chulvi-Medrano, Iván
author_facet Rodrigo-Mallorca, Darío
Loaiza-Betancur, Andrés Felipe
Monteagudo, Pablo
Blasco-Lafarga, Cristina
Chulvi-Medrano, Iván
author_sort Rodrigo-Mallorca, Darío
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8583588
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85835882021-11-12 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 Rodrigo-Mallorca, Darío Loaiza-Betancur, Andrés Felipe Monteagudo, Pablo Blasco-Lafarga, Cristina Chulvi-Medrano, Iván Int J Environ Res Public Health Systematic Review 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. MDPI 2021-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8583588/ /pubmed/34769957 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111441 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Rodrigo-Mallorca, Darío
Loaiza-Betancur, Andrés Felipe
Monteagudo, Pablo
Blasco-Lafarga, Cristina
Chulvi-Medrano, Iván
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8583588/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34769957
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111441
work_keys_str_mv AT rodrigomallorcadario resistancetrainingwithbloodflowrestrictioncomparedtotraditionalresistancetrainingonstrengthandmusclemassinnonactiveolderadultsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT loaizabetancurandresfelipe resistancetrainingwithbloodflowrestrictioncomparedtotraditionalresistancetrainingonstrengthandmusclemassinnonactiveolderadultsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT monteagudopablo resistancetrainingwithbloodflowrestrictioncomparedtotraditionalresistancetrainingonstrengthandmusclemassinnonactiveolderadultsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT blascolafargacristina resistancetrainingwithbloodflowrestrictioncomparedtotraditionalresistancetrainingonstrengthandmusclemassinnonactiveolderadultsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chulvimedranoivan resistancetrainingwithbloodflowrestrictioncomparedtotraditionalresistancetrainingonstrengthandmusclemassinnonactiveolderadultsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis