Trial reportPhysiological reports2026
The acute respiratory response to blood-flow restriction resistance exercise in healthy adults: A randomized crossover trial.
Trial report in Physiological reports, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study compared acute respiratory responses to low-load blood flow restriction resistance exercise (LL-BFR) and traditional high-load resistance exercise (HL-TRA) in healthy individuals. A randomized crossover design with a 48-h washout was used. Participants completed LL-BFR (30% one repetition maximum [1RM], 70% limb occlusion pressure [LOP]) and HL-TRA (70% 1RM, no occlusion) on a leg press. HL-TRA involved 3 sets of 12 repetitions; LL-BFR included 4 sets (15, 30). Respiratory parameters were measured breath-by-breath. Ratings of perceived breathing effort and leg exertion (0-10 scale) were recorded. Data were analyzed using linear mixed models. Twenty-four participants (8 males, 16 females) completed the study. LL-BFR resulted in lower minute ventilation (VE, primary outcome) by -3.32 L/min (95% CI: -4.55 to -2.08), oxygen consumption by -0.12 L/min (95% CI: -0.15 to -0.09), carbon dioxide production by -0.16 L/min (95% CI: -0.19 to -0.13), and perceived breathing effort by -1.2 units (95% CI: -1.5 to -0.8) compared to HL-TRA. Perceived leg exertion was higher with LL-BFR (1.8 units; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.2). LL-BFR elicited lower respiratory responses and reduced perceived breathing effort than HL-TRA, despite greater leg discomfort.
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.