↓ Skip to main content

Low intensity blood flow restriction training: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
66 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
8 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
345 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1138 Mendeley
Title
Low intensity blood flow restriction training: a meta-analysis
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology, September 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00421-011-2167-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy P. Loenneke, Jacob M. Wilson, Pedro J. Marín, Michael C. Zourdos, Michael G. Bemben

Abstract

The primary objective of this investigation was to quantitatively identify which training variables result in the greatest strength and hypertrophy outcomes with lower body low intensity training with blood flow restriction (LI-BFR). Searches were performed for published studies with certain criteria. First, the primary focus of the study must have compared the effects of low intensity endurance or resistance training alone to low intensity exercise with some form of blood flow restriction. Second, subject populations had to have similar baseline characteristics so that valid outcome measures could be made. Finally, outcome measures had to include at least one measure of muscle hypertrophy. All studies included in the analysis utilized MRI except for two which reported changes via ultrasound. The mean overall effect size (ES) for muscle strength for LI-BFR was 0.58 [95% CI: 0.40, 0.76], and 0.00 [95% CI: -0.18, 0.17] for low intensity training. The mean overall ES for muscle hypertrophy for LI-BFR training was 0.39 [95% CI: 0.35, 0.43], and -0.01 [95% CI: -0.05, 0.03] for low intensity training. Blood flow restriction resulted in significantly greater gains in strength and hypertrophy when performed with resistance training than with walking. In addition, performing LI-BFR 2-3 days per week resulted in the greatest ES compared to 4-5 days per week. Significant correlations were found between ES for strength development and weeks of duration, but not for muscle hypertrophy. This meta-analysis provides insight into the impact of different variables on muscular strength and hypertrophy to LI-BFR training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 66 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Norway 2 <1%
Austria 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 1117 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 215 19%
Student > Master 202 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 85 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 82 7%
Student > Postgraduate 63 6%
Other 198 17%
Unknown 293 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 369 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 175 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 134 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 2%
Other 74 7%
Unknown 319 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 January 2023.
All research outputs
#655,800
of 25,703,943 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#186
of 4,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,333
of 130,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#5
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,703,943 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 130,746 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.