Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34981201›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2022

Muscle growth adaptations to high-load training and low-load training with blood flow restriction in calf muscles.

Ryo Kataoka, Ecaterina Vasenina, William B Hammert, Adam H Ibrahim, Scott J Dankel, Samuel L Buckner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ryo KataokaUSF Muscle Lab, Exercise Science Program, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave. PED 214, Tampa, FL, 33620-8600, USA.
Ecaterina VaseninaUSF Muscle Lab, Exercise Science Program, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave. PED 214, Tampa, FL, 33620-8600, USA.
William B HammertUSF Muscle Lab, Exercise Science Program, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave. PED 214, Tampa, FL, 33620-8600, USA.
Adam H IbrahimUSF Muscle Lab, Exercise Science Program, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave. PED 214, Tampa, FL, 33620-8600, USA.
Scott J DankelExercise Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health and Exercise Science, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA.
Samuel L BucknerUSF Muscle Lab, Exercise Science Program, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave. PED 214, Tampa, FL, 33620-8600, USA. slbuckner@usf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2139-7356
University of South Florida · USRowan University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare muscle growth adaptations between traditional high-load training and low-load training with blood flow restriction (BFR) in the calf muscles over 6 weeks.

methods27 trained individuals performed calf exercise in both legs for 6 weeks. Each leg was randomly assigned to one of the two conditions: (1) Traditional (70% of 1RM) training (TRAD); and (2) Low-load (30% of 1RM) training with BFR. In addition, subjects performed standing calf raises with or without BFR. Measures were taken pre- and post-intervention.

resultsFor the posterior muscle site, there was no condition (BFR vs. TRAD) × time (pre vs. post) interaction (p = 0.15). In addition, there was no main effect for condition (p = 0.83) or time (p = 0.20). For the lateral muscle site, there was no condition × time interaction (p = 0.47). In addition, there was no main effect for condition (p = 0.10) or time (p = 0.57). For the medial muscle site, there was no condition × time interaction (p = 0.60). In addition, there was no main effect for condition (p = 0.44) or time (p = 0.72). For RPE, there was no condition × time interaction. However, there was a main effect for condition (p < 0.05) with BFR having higher RPE. For discomfort, there was no condition × time interaction. However, there was a main effect for condition (p < 0.001) with the BFR condition displaying higher discomfort.

conclusionNo muscle growth was detected in the calf musculature. BFR was not more effective at eliciting muscle hypertrophy compared to traditional training. However, it was accompanied with higher exertion and discomfort.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalBlood Flow Restriction TherapyResistance TrainingAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansLegMaleMuscle, SkeletalBlood flow restrictionKaatsuLow loadMuscle growthMuscle thicknessResistance training

Identifiers

PMID34981201
OpenAlexW4206488584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.