ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Unilateral low-load blood flow restriction vs. high-load training in the Bulgarian split squat: a randomized within-subject design on strength, hypertrophy, and asymmetry.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the effects of a 6-week unilateral low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) training protocol versus traditional high-load resistance training (HL-RT) on maximal strength, muscle hypertrophy, and explosive power in resistance-trained men. Methods: Twenty-four resistance-trained males (age: 21.0 ± 2.0 years) completed a randomized within-subject trial. Each participant performed unilateral Bulgarian split squats (BSS) with one leg assigned to LL-BFR (30% 1RM, 30-15-15-15 repetitions at 80% arterial occlusion pressure [AOP]) and the contralateral leg to HL-RT (80% 1RM, 4 sets of 10 repetitions). Training consisted of 18 sessions over 6 weeks. Variable assessments, including BSS 1RM, vastus lateralis (VL) muscle thickness, and single-leg countermovement jump (SLCMJ) height and relative peak power were conducted both before (pretests) and after (posttests) the intervention. Results: Both conditions resulted in significant time-dependent improvements in BSS 1RM (LL-BFR: +10.7%; HL-RT: +13.0%), VL muscle thickness (LL-BFR: +8.1%; HL-RT: +9.3%), and SLCMJ performance (height: +10.7-13.0%; relative peak power: +6.5-8.7%) (all P < 0.05). Crucially, no significant condition × time interactions were detected for any variable, indicating that the magnitude of adaptation was comparable between the LL-BFR and HL protocols. Additionally, training did not exacerbate inter-limb asymmetry. Conclusions: Unilateral LL-BFR and HL-RT produced similar time-dependent improvements in maximal strength, muscle hypertrophy, and explosive performance in resistance-trained men. LL-BFR may be considered as a joint-sparing option when high mechanical loading is not feasible or desirable.
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.