Impact of exercise with blood flow restriction on muscle hypertrophy and performance outcomes in men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) has been previously studied as an alternative form of resistance training to gain lean mass and improve performance outcomes. However, in all exercise studies of BFRT, the proportion of female participants represents only 17-29% of all research participants. This highlights a strong underrepresentation of females and the need for more knowledge on the impact of BFRT and sex differences. The primary objective was to compare the impact of 6-week BFRT on lean mass, strength, and performance outcomes between males and females. A total of 38 adults [age, 25.3 ± 3.1 years; female, n = 19 (50%)] performed whole-body resistance training program with blood flow restriction three times per week. Exercises were performed at 30% of 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) and blood flow restriction cuffs were set to 60% of each individual's limb occlusion pressure. Body composition was assessed via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and strength was measured using 1-RM. A significant increase in lean mass was observed in males (p = 0.009) and females (p = 0.023) with no difference in the change between groups (p = 0.279). Both males and females increased 1-RM for upper- and lower-body exercises, with significant interaction effects (time x sex) for chest press (p = 0.003), seated row (p = 0.038), knee flexion (p = 0.043), and knee extension (p = 0.035), suggesting males increased 1-RM more for these exercises. Furthermore, peak power was improved in males (p < 0.001) and females (p = 0.002) during a vertical squat jump, but a significant interaction (time x sex) effect was observed (p = 0.039), suggesting males increased to a greater extent. Males and females significantly increased lean body mass, to a similar degree, following six weeks of resistance training in combination with blood flow restriction. Likewise, both males and females improved muscle strength following 6-week BFRT, however males may improve strength to a greater extent than females.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".