ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2022
Effect of different recovery modes during resistance training with blood flow restriction on hormonal levels and performance in young men: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of low-intensity suspension training with blood flow restriction on GH, IGF-1, and their association with physical fitness in young women.Physiological reports · 2024Trial
- Pressure point: blood flow restriction exercise and the pain paradox in musculoskeletal injury and persistent pain populations-a narrative review.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Advances in Understanding the Interplay between Dietary Practices, Body Composition, and Sports Performance in Athletes.Nutrients · 2024Review
- Blood Flow Restriction Is Not Useful as Soccer Competition Recovery in Youth Male National-Level Soccer Players: A Crossover Randomised Controlled Trial.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Correction: Effect of different recovery modes during resistance training with blood flow restriction on hormonal levels and performance in young men: a randomized controlled trial.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) results in hypertrophy, and its magnitude depends on various training variables. This study aimed to compare the long-term effect of passive recovery (PR) and active recovery (AR) during low-intensity resistance training with BFR on hormonal levels and performance in young men.
methodsIn the randomized clinical trial, 20 men were randomly divided into PR and AR groups during resistance training with BFR. The intervention consisted of six upper and lower body movements with 30% of one maximum repetition (1RM), three sessions per week for six weeks. Both groups wore pneumatic cuffs on the proximal part of thighs and arms. The cuff pressure was 60% of the calculated arterial blood occlusion and increased 10% every two weeks. The AR group performed seven repetitions in 30 s break between sets by one second for concentric and eccentric phases and two seconds rest, and the other group had passive rest. The blood samples and a series of performance tests were gathered before and after the intervention. A repeated measure ANOVA was used to analyze data.
resultsAR and PR interventions significantly improved the C-reactive protein (CRP) (- 38% vs. - 40%), Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (- 11% vs. - 3%), Sargent jump (9% vs. 10%), peak power (20% vs.18%), and average power (14% vs. 14%), upper 1RM (8% vs. 8%) and no significant differences were observed between groups. The AR intervention significantly increased growth hormone (GH) (423% vs. 151%, p = 0.03), lower body 1RM (18% vs. 11%) and muscle endurance (34% vs. 22% for the upper body, p = 0.02 and 32% vs. 24% for the lower body, p = 0.04) than the PR group. The PR intervention further increased the minimum power than the AR group (19% vs. 10%). There were no significant changes in testosterone (p = 0.79) and cortisol (p = 0.34) following interventions.
conclusionThe findings indicated that by increasing muscle activation and higher metabolic load, AR during resistance training with BFR might cause more remarkable improvements in serum GH, muscle strength, and endurance. Thus, to gain further benefits, AR during training with BFR is recommended.
trial registrationIRCT20191207045644N1. Registration date: 14/03/2020. URL: https://www.irct.ir/search/result?query=IRCT20191207045644N1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.