Chronic adaptations to blood flow restriction aerobic or bodyweight resistance training: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION Blood flow restriction (BFR) training has garnered considerable attention in recent years as an innovative method for enhancing aerobic fitness, muscle strength, and muscular hypertrophy. However, the variation of intervention protocols has impeded consensus in the scientific literature. As a result, the primary objective of this study is to systematically investigate and review the available evidence concerning BFR in conjunction with aerobic and bodyweight resistance training. METHODS A thorough search of electronic databases, including PubMed (MEDLINE), Cinahl, SPORTDiscus® (via EBSCOhost), Embase, and Cochrane (Central), was conducted to identify relevant published studies. The inclusion criteria encompassed a healthy sample population aged 18 and above, original studies, chronic exercise sessions (minimum duration of 2 weeks of training) involving BFR in the context of aerobic or bodyweight resistance training, and comparisons with conventional non-BFR training. RESULTS The review identified 24 eligible studies that met the inclusion criteria. The findings demonstrated that chronic adaptations to BFR aerobic training were characterized by substantial improvements in VO2max (4-9%) and muscle strength (6-31%) compared to conventional aerobic training. Furthermore, BFR bodyweight resistance training yielded muscle hypertrophy (3-5%) and strength (4-11%) gains on par with those achieved through conventional resistance training. CONCLUSION This systematic review underscores the potential benefits of chronic adaptations stemming from blood flow restriction training in both aerobic and bodyweight resistance training. BFR aerobic training presents itself as a promising avenue for enhancing cardiovascular fitness, muscular strength, and hypertrophy. Meanwhile, BFR bodyweight resistance training shows promise in promoting muscle hypertrophy and strength gains, although it is worth noting that the available evidence is limited. Further research and a broader base of studies are required to validate and expand upon these findings.