Trial reportScandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports2026
Effects of Low-Load Blood-Flow Restriction Training Versus High-Load Resistance Training on Neuromuscular Performance and Neuromuscular Activation.
Trial report in Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Low-Load Blood-Flow Restriction Training Versus High-Load Resistance Training on Neuromuscular Performance and Neuromuscular Activation.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026Trial
- Effects of calcium-regulating pulsed electromagnetic field combined with low-load blood flow restriction training on strength and performance adaptations in adolescent sprinters.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2026Article
- Methods and Systems of Resistance Training: A Narrative Review Based on Contemporary Recommendations.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Acute effects of different blood flow restriction conditioning protocols on countermovement and squat jump performance.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Low-load blood-flow restriction (BFR) training is a potential alternative to high-load (HL) resistance training, especially when mechanical stress must be minimized. However, its effects on neuromuscular activation remain unclear. This randomized controlled trial compared changes in voluntary activation (VA) and neuromuscular performance following 8 weeks of BFR versus HL knee extensor training and examined the effects of a subsequent 2-week HL phase in both groups. Thirty-seven healthy adults (37-59 years, 22 female) underwent progressive BFR or HL training for 8 weeks (phase 1), followed by 2 weeks of HL training on knee extensor muscles (phase 2). Outcomes included VA, maximal isometric and dynamic leg extension and leg press strength, rate of force development (RFD), and jump performance. Linear mixed models were used to analyze group*time interactions; Cohen's d effect sizes are reported. After both training phases, the BFR group showed smaller improvements than HL in VA (d = -0.31 to -0.37), maximal isometric strength (d = -0.07 to -0.27), dynamic strength (d = -0.18 to -0.75), and RFD (d = -0.48 to -0.54). Jump performance showed trivial between-group differences (d = -0.01 to -0.05). Although a subsequent 2-week HL phase improved outcomes in the BFR group, it did not fully restore neural adaptations to the level of continuous HL training. These findings underscore the essential role of mechanical loading in optimizing neuromuscular function. While BFR may serve as a useful preparatory method in contexts where high loads are initially contraindicated, follow-up HL training is required to maximize neuromuscular adaptation. Trial Registration: This study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/DA6SV).
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.