ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Comparing high-intensity resistance training incorporating periodic eccentric-only exercise with blood flow restriction training in older men: physiological responses and exercise feasibility.
Article in European journal of applied 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to compare the feasibility, strength adaptations, and physiological effects of high-intensity resistance training incorporating periodic eccentric-only exercise (HIRT) with blood-flow restriction training (BFRT) in older men.
methodsThis three-group randomized controlled trial included 63 older men assigned to lower limb HIRT, BFRT, or a non-exercising control group for 12 weeks. BFRT was at 40% one-repetition maximum (1RM) and HIRT altered between eccentric-only exercises at 120% 1RM and traditional resistance exercise at 80% 1RM in a 1:3 ratio. Outcome measures included ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), lactate and creatine kinase (CK) levels, 1RM and adverse events.
resultsBFRT was associated with higher RPE and more frequent training till failure, as well as greater lactate responses. Eccentric sessions in HIRT resulted in higher DOMS and CK levels. Both interventions significantly improved 1RM compared to controls, with HIRT demonstrating greater strength gains in leg extension and leg press. Adverse events included elevated blood pressure (n=1) and headache (n=2) in BFRT, and knee pain (n=2) in HIRT.
conclusionBoth interventions were effective but imposed different physiological demands, with BFRT inducing greater metabolic and HIRT greater mechanical stress. HIRT led to slightly greater strength gains, while BFRT remains a viable alternative for those unable to perform high-load exercise. Incorporating eccentric exercise may further optimize adaptations and manage muscle damage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42782335What 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.