Repetition Failure Occurs Earlier During Low-Load Resistance Exercise With High But Not Low Blood Flow Restriction Pressures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Cerqueira, MS, Lira, M, Mendonça Barboza, JA, Burr, JF, Wanderley e Lima, TB, Maciel, DG, and De Brito Vieira, WH. Repetition failure occurs earlier during low-load resistance exercise with high but not low blood flow restriction pressures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2021-High-load and low-load resistance training (LL-RT) performed to failure are considered effective for improving muscle mass and strength. Alternatively, LL-RT with blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) may accelerate repetition failure and has been suggested to be more time efficient than LL-RT. This study explores the evidence for the effects of LL-BFR vs. LL-RT on repetition failure. A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and PEDro databases. Meta-analyses of mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted for both the high and low blood flow restriction pressures. The search identified n = 10 articles that met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis comprised a total of 218 healthy subjects. Low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction with high pressures (≥50% arterial occlusion pressure [AOP]) precipitate repetition failure in ∼14.5 fewer repetitions (95% CI -19.53 to -9.38) compared with LL-RT, whereas the use of low pressures (<50% AOP) stimulated repetition failure with ∼1.4 fewer repetitions (95% CI -3.11 to 0.37); however, this difference was not statistically significant. Repetition failure has been demonstrated to be an important normalizing variable when comparing the hypertrophic and strength effects resulting from resistance training and occurs earlier during low-load resistance exercise with high but not low blood flow restriction pressures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".