Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Oct 30;18(21):11441.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph182111441.

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  1 , Andrés Felipe Loaiza-Betancur  2 , Pablo Monteagudo  1   3 , Cristina Blasco-Lafarga  1 , Iván Chulvi-Medrano  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

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 et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

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, I2 71% p < 0.0001; but not in the repetition maximum (RM): SMD 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.40], p = 0.66, I2 0% p < 0.53; neither in the muscle mass: SMD 0.62, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.34], p = 0.09, I2 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow-chart of the study selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item for muscular strength outcome.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item for muscular strength outcome.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item for muscle mass outcome.
Figure 5
Figure 5
LI-BFR versus RT on muscular strength (RM test), standard means difference (SMD).
Figure 6
Figure 6
LI-BFR versus RT on muscular strength (MVC test), standard means difference (SMD).
Figure 7
Figure 7
LI-BFR versus RT on muscle mass, standard means difference (SMD).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. World Health Organization Ageing and Health. World Health Organization. 2018. [(accessed on 25 June 2021)]. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health.+Gene...
    1. Olshansky S.J. From Lifespan to Healthspan. JAMA. 2018;320:1323–1324. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.12621. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lazarus N., Lord J.M., Harridge S.D.R. The Relationships and Interactions between Age, Exercise and Physiological Function. J. Physiol. 2019;597:1299–1309. doi: 10.1113/JP277071. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Izquierdo M., Merchant R.A., Morley J.E., Anker S.D., Aprahamian I., Arai H., Aubertin-Leheudre M., Bernabei R., Cadore E.L., Cesari M., et al. International Exercise Recommendations in Older Adults (ICFSR): Expert Consensus Guidelines. J. Nutr. Health Aging. 2021;25:824–853. doi: 10.1007/s12603-021-1665-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Morley J.E. Frailty and Sarcopenia in Elderly. Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 2016;128:439–445. doi: 10.1007/s00508-016-1087-5. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources