ArticleBiology of sport2026
Effects of velocity loss with blood flow restriction in full squat on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, and muscle hypertrophy.
Article in Biology of sport, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effects of movement velocity in squat training with and without blood flow restriction.Biology of sport · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To analyse the effects of four full squat (SQ) training programmes with different velocity loss (VL) thresholds (0%, 10%, 20%, and 40%) with blood flow restriction (BFR) implementation on muscle size, lower limb strength, and neuromuscular adaptations. Forty-six strength-trained men carried out an 8-week (16 sessions) SQ training programme with BFR that differed in the VL attained within the set: BFR 0% VL (BFR0, n = 11), BFR 10% VL (BFR10, n = 11), BFR 20% VL (BFR20, n = 11), and BFR 40% VL (BFR40, n = 13). The same inter-set recovery (2 minutes), sets (3), intensity (from 55% to 70% 1RM), and level of BFR (50% of arterial occlusion pressure) were established for all groups. Before and after the training intervention, the following tests were carried out: 1) vastus lateralis muscle size; 2) countermovement jump; 3) maximal isometric SQ test; 4) progressive loading SQ test; and 5) fatigue SQ test. Muscle hypertrophy increased as the VL increased ("group × time" interaction: p = 0.013). Only BFR20 significantly improved force production at various time intervals ("group × time" interactions: p ≤ 0.05). Moreover, effect sizes suggest that low-to-moderate VL thresholds maximize the improvements in SQ strength against different loads (BFR0: 0.47-1.75; BFR10: 0.61-1.96; BFR20: 0.71-2.18; BFR40: 0.38-1.53). In BFR contexts, low-to-moderate VL thresholds should be prescribed to optimize leg strength performance. Extremely low VL (i.e., 0%) seemed insufficient to maximize strength gains, while higher VL thresholds are more effective for promoting muscle hypertrophy but may somewhat compromise strength improvements.
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.