The Safety of Blood Flow Restriction Combined with Stepping Aerobic Exercise in Older Adults with Sarcopenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hui Zhang,1,2,* Shulian Liu,3,* Zhiyu Mao,2 Kewen Niu,2 Xinwei Li,2 Tongtong Yin,2 Fangfang Wang,2 Li Wang2 1School of Nursing, Suzhou Vocational Health College, Jiangsu, 215009, People’s Republic of China; 2School of Nursing, Suzhou Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, 215006, People’s Republic of China; 3Luoyang Polytechnic, Henan, 471000, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Li Wang, School of Nursing, Suzhou Medical College of Soochow University, No. 1 Shizi Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, 215006, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86-512-6522-1499, Fax +86-512-6512-5097, Email li-wang-1@suda.edu.cnPurpose: This study aimed to explore the safety of blood flow restriction combined stepping aerobic exercise (BFR-SAE) using elastic and non-elastic cuffs at varying pressures in older adults with sarcopenia.Methods: Older adults with sarcopenia were selected by convenience sampling method and underwent BFR-SAE using elastic and non-elastic cuffs at 20%, 40%, and 60% limb occlusion pressure (LOP). Exercise response and adverse events were recorded.Results: Thirty-one participants (84.81 ± 6.19 years old) completed the tests. During the non-elastic cuffs test, 31 participants completed at 20% LOP, and 4 (12.9%) dropped from 40% to 20% LOP. At 60% LOP, 19 (61.3%) and 3 (9.7%) dropped to 40% and 20% LOP, respectively. In the elastic cuffs tests all participants completed at 20% and 40% LOP. At 60% LOP, 9 (29.0%) dropped to the interface pressure corresponding to 40% LOP. General exercise responses were lower with elastic cuffs at 40% LOP (22.6% vs 45.2%) and 60% LOP (41.9% vs 51.6%), with higher completion rate than non-elastic cuffs (40% LOP: 100% vs 87.1%; 60% LOP: 71.0% vs 29.0%). Among the results of systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), pulse rate (P) and pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), differences were found in BP and P at different time points (P< 0.05) within each pressure, but no significant difference between different pressures. Non-elastic cuffs caused significant increases in SBP, DBP, and P from rest, while only SBP and P showed significant increases in elastic cuffs group. Pain scores were 0 for both cuffs after tests, the adverse events rate was 1.1% and rating of perceived exertion all reached moderate-intensity of exercise.Conclusion: Elastic cuffs for BFR-SAE induced milder exercise responses and higher completion rates, suggesting better safety and feasibility than non-elastic cuffs in older adults with possible sarcopenia.Keywords: blood flow restriction, aerobic exercise, sarcopenia, safety, older adults
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".