ArticleBiology of sport2026
Effects of movement velocity in squat training with and without blood flow restriction.
Article in Biology of sport, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared the effects of four different resistance training (RT) programs that differed in the movement velocity [maximum (MaxV) vs. 50% of maximum voluntary velocity (HalfV)] and the blood flow condition [free (FF) vs. restricted (BFR)] on strength, neuromuscular, and hypertrophy adaptations. Fortysix resistance-trained males were randomly assigned to one of the four abovementioned protocols. Subjects followed an 8-week RT program, twice per week, with similar intensity (55%-65% 1RM), sets (3), and repetitions per set (10-6) in the full-squat (SQ) exercise. Before and after the RT program, they were evaluated for: 1) muscle size of the vastus lateralis; 2) vertical jump; 3) maximal isometric contraction; 4) progressive loading test; and 5) fatigue test, in SQ. Electromyographic (EMG) activity was assessed during all SQ tests. All protocols exhibited significant gains in strength-derived parameters without significant differences between groups. A BFR × VEL × time interaction (p = 0.05) was observed for countermovement jump, with improvements in the HalfV-BFR and MaxV-FF protocols. A VEL × time interaction (p = 0.03) was found for the EMG amplitude under light loads, since HalfV-BFR increased its values. MaxV-BFR and HalfV-FF induced greater hypertrophy in the distal region of the vastus lateralis (BFR × VEL × time interaction, p = 0.04), with MaxV-BFR producing the greatest gains in all sections. Both MaxV-FF and HalfV-BFR increased CMJ height. HalfV-BFR also increased neuromuscular activity against light loads. MaxV-BFR and HalfV-FF evoked higher hypertrophy in muscle size, with the greatest gains in muscle size with MaxV-BFR.
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.