ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Comparative effects of low-load blood flow restriction training and high-load resistance training on physical performance in college 800-m runners: a randomized control trial.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-load resistance training (HLRT) is commonly used to enhance performance in 800-m runners but may not always be suitable. Low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training offers similar benefits to HLRT while reducing these issues. This study aimed to compare the effects of traditional HL-RT and low-load BFR training on muscular strength, power, endurance, and running performance of collegiate 800-m runners over an 8-week training program. Methods: A total of 22 participants were randomly divided into HL-RT group (n = 11) and BFR group (n = 11). Physical performance was assessed at three time points: baseline, mid-intervention, and post-intervention. The tests included the 20-m sprint test (T20m), countermovement jump test (CMJ), smith machine full-squat test (to assess V1 load), plantar flexion rate of force development test (PF-RFD), 200-m test (T200m), and 800-m test (T800m). Results: Significant time effects were observed for T20m, CMJ, V1 load, PF-RFD, T200m, and T800m (all P < 0.05), and significant interaction effects between time and group was found for V1load (P < 0.05). Post-training comparisons between the HL-RT and BFR groups revealed a significant improvement in V1 load in the HL-RT group (P < 0.05), while no significant differences were found between the groups for the other performance measures. The present results indicate that both HL-RT and BFR training demonstrate positive effects on the muscular strength, power, endurance, and running performance, while HL-RT demonstrate greater gains in muscular power. Conclusion: Low-load BFR training offers an effective alternative to traditional HL-RT for enhancing competitive performance and key physical attributes in collegiate 800-m runners.
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.