Introduction
Recent evidence shows that low-load resistance exercise (LLRE, 20% to 50% of one repetition maximum-1RM) with blood flow restriction (LLRE-BFR)—also called the Kaatsu method [1]—induces muscle adaptations similar to high-load resistance exercise (HLRE) in clinical musculoskeletal rehabilitation [2], elderly [3] and athlete [4] populations. LLRE-BFR is performed with the application of external pressure through a pressurized cuff or elastic strap applied over the proximal third of the upper or lower limbs [1]. Studies suggest that the externally applied pressure reduces arterial flow, and occludes venous blood flow distal to the site of application, causing a decrease of blood entry into the muscle [5,6]. The reduction of blood flow creates an ischemic/hypoxic environment in the muscle, increasing metabolic stress, one of the proposed mechanisms thought to induce muscle strength and hypertrophy [5,7,8]. Pearson and Hussain [8] hypothesize that metabolic stress associated with LLRE-BFR promotes muscle growth through earlier fast-twitch muscle fiber recruitment, greater hormonal production, cellular swelling, and production of reactive oxygen species (ROS).
Generation of ROS is directly related with several physiological processes in skeletal muscle, including the control of gene expression, regulation of cell signaling pathways, and modulation of skeletal muscle force production [9,10]. Although excessive ROS production may cause muscle damage and strength loss, low to moderate concentrations of ROS following resistance exercise may act as signaling molecules for muscle adaptation [11]. Furthermore, post resistance exercise, physiological responses such as the infiltration of phagocytes (i.e., neutrophils and macrophages) at the site of injury are necessary for neuromuscular adaptation [8]. This exercise-induced inflammatory response also contributes to increase of ROS and oxidative damage to biomolecules [9].
One of the mechanisms for increasing production of exercise-induced ROS occurs through ischemia-reperfusion [12]. Ischemia-reperfusion can be summarized as the deprivation of blood flow and lack of oxygen (ischemia/hypoxia), followed by the restoration of blood flow and supercompensation of muscle tissue oxygenation (reperfusion) [13]. During exercise performance between the concentric and eccentric muscle action stages, the muscle fiber may experience temporary ischemia from exercise demand and microvasculature compression [14]. After completion of the exercise bout, perfusion is re-established as the local microvasculature is no longer compressed through muscular contraction. This may induce activation of xanthine oxidase, NADPH oxidase, and the leakage of electrons by the mitochondrial electron transport chain, increasing ROS production in skeletal muscle [12].
Indeed, studies have demonstrated LLRE-BFR induces greater intramuscular deoxygenation compared to LLRE and HLRE without BFR [15,16]. Thus, the hypoxic environment and local cellular PO2 reductions generated during LLRE-BFR could cause a reduced state of the mitochondrial electron transport chain, producing greater mitochondrial ROS emissions. The increase in ROS production may be triggered by reperfusion of ischemic tissue, likely initiating oxidative stress from elevations in local muscular oxygen consumption [17]. In this way, it is hypothesized that ischemia-reperfusion potentiated during skeletal muscle contraction with BFR may be a mechanism promoting ROS production and subsequent muscle adaptations [18], given it can promote comparable adaptations to HLRE despite lower exercise loads. Therefore, it is unclear whether resistance exercise with BFR generates similar or greater oxidative stress markers than resistance exercise without BFR. Understanding the effects of BFR on oxidative stress is central to understanding the cellular mechanisms involved in the muscular adaptations following longitudinal BFR resistance exercise programs. This is relevant considering the growing body of literature supporting the use of BFR to induce positive musculoskeletal benefits comparable to HLRE and superior to LLRE [6].
The aim of this review was to systematically analyze the evidence on exercise-induced oxidative stress in resistance exercise with and without BFR. The research questions for this systematic review were: (1) Does a LLRE-BFR session generate antioxidant responses and oxidative stress greater or similar to HLRE? and (2) Does a session of LLRE-BFR elevate antioxidant responses and oxidative stress to a greater level than LLRE without BFR?
Materials and methods
The protocol of the review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, (CRD42020183204). Using the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyzes (PRISMA-P) [19], a search was carried out in the electronic databases.
Eligibility criteria
The research question was developed through the PICOS strategy: P—Healthy human subjects; I—resistance exercise with LLRE-BFR; C—LLRE or HLRE without BFR; O–oxidative stress biomarkers; S—randomized clinical trials. The studies were considered relevant based on the following criteria: studies performed with healthy subjects; low-load (defined as all loads between 20–50% of 1RM or maximal voluntary contraction [MVC] resistance exercises performed with BFR, compared with HLRE (defined as loads ≥ 70% 1RM /MVC) or LLRE without BFR (defined as load ≤ 50% 1RM / MVC) (1,3], evaluation of at least one oxidative stress biomarker and randomized clinical trials. Studies that were considered not relevant had subjects who received a substance before or after the intervention (i.e., supplementation) or the design of the study was not a clinical trial.
Information sources
Seven databases were searched for eligible trials from inception until April 15, 2022: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials—CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus (Ebsco), EMBASE (Ebsco), PubMed, CINAHL (Ebsco) and Virtual Health Library- VHL, which includes Lilacs, Medline and SciELO, without restriction of year and language. Manual searches were conducted on the reference lists of the included records, as well as the documents that cited any of the included studies to identify potential eligible studies.
Search strategy
The search in all databases was performed (‘All field / All text”) as shown and search strategies described in Supporting Information [S1 Search]. We conducted an additional search on September 4, 2022 to identify potential studies published after April 15, 2022. This search strategy was used by two blinded researchers (JVF and MVF) independently. Disagreements were resolved through a third researcher (TDM) to reach a consensus.
Selection process
The screening process was divided into three phases after implementing the search strategy. In the first phase, duplicate articles were eliminated using the Rayyan® software program [20]. In the second phase, a title and abstract search was performed by each reviewer and titles and abstracts that did not meet the eligibility criteria were excluded. In the last phase, all remaining articles considered relevant were assessed for eligibility based on full reading. In the included studies, the reference list was reviewed, and potentially relevant studies were assessed for eligibility to ensure all studies that met inclusion criteria were included.
Data collection process
In this step, information about (1) the study authors and date; (2) population (i.e., number of subjects and their characteristics); (3) study design, (4) exercise protocol (number of series and repetitions, frequency of training, training length, exercised muscle, muscle action mode, and exercise load); (5) BFR cuff settings (pressure and width); and (5) biomarkers associated with oxidative stress measured in blood was extracted by each author (JVF and MVF) independently and disagreements were resolved by a third researcher (TDM). When different sampling times were used, the pre-exercise and the immediately post (until 5 minutes post-exercise), 24- and 48 hours after training session were considered. This was due to the lack of studies that had measured oxidative stress markers at consistent time points following the post-exercise.
If the values were presented in graph forms, Plot Digitizer 2.6.8 (Java, 2018) was used to perform data extraction, improving reliability between the data extracted by the reviewers [21].
Risk of bias assessment
The quality assessment and potential bias of eligible studies was performed using the PEDro scale. According to the PEDro scale, clinical trials with a score <4 are considered ’poor’, 4 or 5 ’fair’, 6, 7, or 8 ’good,’ and 9 or 10 ’excellent’. For trials evaluating complex interventions (i.e., exercise), a PEDro score of 8/10 is considered optimal [22]. The study information was extracted independently by the researchers (JVF and MVF) for subsequent crosschecking of the data and discussion of possible discrepancies.
Data synthesis and analysis
The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.4, Copenhagen, Denmark: The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2019) to summarize the effects of resistance training performed with BFR on pro-oxidant and antioxidant activity. For those studies evaluating multiple oxidative stress biomarkers, all were included. However, when possible, we performed a comparative meta-analysis for each biomarker. Data were pooled in meta-analyses and the effect size (ES) was described as standardized mean differences (SMD) when the data were presented in different outcome measures and as mean difference (MD) if the studies used the same outcome measure [23]. ES magnitudes of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 were classified as low, moderate and large, respectively [23,24]. Significance level was set at p<0.05 for all analyses.
For calculating ES, the changes (immediately-, 24- and 48 hours after exercise) from baseline (Mean post−Mean pre) and standard deviations (SD) of pro-oxidants and antioxidants for all groups in each study were determined. All change values were estimated through calculations using the confidence interval calculator downloaded from the PEDro website [25]. If the SD information was not available, it was estimated from standard error, confidence interval or p-value according to the recommendations provided by Cochrane’s Handbook for Systematic Reviews [23]. The analysis of pooled data was calculated using a random effect model because of the heterogeneity of the studies. Heterogeneity between studies was determined using the Cochrane’s chi-squared test, and the percentage of variability in effect estimates that was attributable to heterogeneity rather than to chance was quantified using Higgins’s inconsistency statistic (I2), with thresholds set as I2 = 25% (low), I2 = 50% (moderate), and I2 = 75% (high) [23].
In addition, we performed a subgroup analysis to explore the effects of different training models (HLRE and LLRE without BFR) compared to LLRE-BFR. When sufficient data was available, sensitivity analyzes were performed to assess the influence of different exercise protocols (i.e., failure versus fixed repetitions) on the effect estimated in the meta-analysis.
Certainty of evidence
Two reviewers (JVF and TDM) assessed the quality of the current evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, regardless of whether there was enough information to perform the meta-analysis [26]. The classification of the quality of the evidence depends on five factors (risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias) where for each factor not met, the quality of the evidence is reduced by one level (high to moderate, low or very low) [26]. The following factors were evaluated in each comparison to make a strength of evidence statement; Risk of bias was present if PEDro score < 6 in greater than 25% of the included trials; Inconsistency if I2 > 50%; Indirectness if > 50% of the subjects in the study were not related to the trial target’s audience; Imprecision if < 400 subjects total in the comparison; publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot when 10 or more studies were in the same comparison [26]. When comparisons of the activity of the oxidant/antioxidant biomarkers had only a single trial (<400 subjects), these studies were classified as inconsistent and imprecise, and were automatically downgraded to ’low quality evidence’, which could be further downgraded to ’very-low quality evidence’ if additional limitations were identified in relation to the risk of bias [27].
Results
The search of seven databases provided a total of 256 citations. After removing the duplicates, the remaining articles were submitted to a title and abstract analysis and 18 articles were considered potentially eligible. Eight were subsequently excluded due to the following reasons: not using oxidative stress biomarkers [28,29], using aerobic exercise [30,31], the subjects had chronic kidney disease [32], overweight [33], received protein supplementation [34], or did not include a LLRE (≤50% of 1RM) or HLRE (≥70% of 1RM) group [35]. Three articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were found after screening the reference list of the included studies [36–38]. Thus, 13 trials met all inclusion criteria (Fig 1) and were published between 2000–2021.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
HLRE–High-load Resistance Exercise; LLRE–Low Load Resistance Exercise.
Study selection and sample characteristics
The 13 studies in this review are summarized in Table 1 and included 158 subjects. Eight studies used a cross-over/inter-subject design [18,36–42] and five studies used a parallel design [43–47]. Included studies generally consisted of small sample sizes ranging from six [43] to twenty-eight subjects [47]. The studied populations were young male subjects between 18 and 35 years old. Five studies were composed of resistance trained subjects [18,36,37,40,41], four trials were conducted in physically / recreationally active men [38,39,44,47], one study classified its subjects as athletes [42], but provided no details about their training routine, while another three studies included sedentary/untrained subjects [43,45,46].
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Exercise protocol
Four of the thirteen studies performed both upper and lower limb resistance exercise [36,38,39,47] whereas five studies performed just upper [38,39,42,44,45], and four performed just lower limb exercises [18,41,44,45]. LLRE intensity varied between 20–50% 1RM while exercise in the HLRE varied between 70–80% 1RM. Of the 13 studies included in this review, six performed exercise to failure [36–39,44,45] but none of these trials reported equalizing training volume (total repetitions × load) between groups (LLRE-BFR versus HLRE or LLRE); one of them calculated training volume [45]. In this study, the LLRE-BFR group had ~2.3-fold greater training volume compared to HLRE. However, even without prescribing exercises until failure, Neto et al. [40] and Centner et al. [18] presented a higher training volume for the HLRE group of ~ 28% and 7%, respectively when compared to LLRE-BFR. Only two studies [41,43] attempted to equalize training volume between LLRE-BFR and LLRE during fixed repetition schemes, while for LLRE-BFR vs HLRE, two studies equalized the training volume [46,47]. All trials in this systematic review did not report any adverse events.
The most frequently used sampling time point for oxidative stress markers was immediately post-exercise (up to two minutes following completion) in twelve studies [18,36–40,42–47], after 24 hours in four studies [39,41,44,45] and only two trials [39,41] sampled 48 hours post-exercise. When studies aimed to compare the effects of different degrees of limb occlusion pressure on oxidative stress markers [18,41,45], we only considered the 75% and 50% limb occlusion pressure groups to align with recent practice guidelines [6].
Risk of bias
The risk of bias assessment is presented in Table 2. The PEDro score of the included trials ranged from 5 to 7 points (mean 5.53 points, SD = 0.77). Eight studies were classified with “fair quality” [18,36–40,42,43] while five were considered “good quality” [41,44–47]. All articles failed to blind the therapist and the subjects. However, the blinding of the therapist / subjects during the application of training with BFR is a methodological limitation due to the technique itself. Random allocation was not applied in three trials [18,36,37]. When there were dropouts, no trials performed intention-to-treat analysis, and only 15% of included studies [39,41] applied allocation concealment.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Among the 13 eligible trials, only two studies provided information on sample losses during the study methodology [39,40]. In addition, no study reported existence of a prospectively registered protocol; only three reported making sample size calculations to adequately power analyses [40,41,46].
LLRE-BFR produces lower lipid peroxidation and protein oxidation compared to HLRE, but not compared to LLRE
The evaluation of oxidation products in biological molecules was used to measure oxidative damage generated to lipids [39–42,45] and proteins [36,37,39,40,43,45]. Other biomarkers analyzed were sulfhydryl / thiols [39,43,45] and nitric oxide [38,46,47]. The measurement of nitric oxide in all studies was evaluated by concentration of nitrite and nitrate in the blood, as an index of endothelial nitric oxide synthase activity. Centner et al. [18] measured the total ROS generation with LLRE-BFR while Garten et al. [37] evaluated the activity of xanthine oxidase.
Of the included studies, three trials (n = 59) [39,40,45] compared the post-exercise effect of lipid peroxidation between LLRE-BFR and HLRE. Our results, based on low certainty of evidence (downgraded due imprecision and risk of bias), demonstrates that LLRE-BFR produces significantly lower post-exercise lipid peroxidation products than HLRE with a large effect size (SMD = -0.95 CI 95%: -1.49 to -0.40, I2 = 0%, p = 0.0007), see Fig 2. Only one trial (n = 11) analyzed changes in lipid damage markers 24 hours and 48 hours after exercise [39]. This study reported that LLRE-BFR produces significantly lower lipid peroxidation products (p = 0.02) at 24 hours post-exercise, but at the 48-hour sampling point, no statistically significant difference was reported (p > 0.05), see Table 3. All these findings are based on very-low certainty of evidence (downgraded due imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias). On the other hand, based on three studies comparing the effects of LLRE-BFR with LLRE, no significant differences were observed in lipid damage markers at any time point evaluated in this review with low certainty of evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). For more details, see Figs 2 and 3.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
LLRE-BFR: Low load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction; HLRE: High-load resistance exercise, LLRE: Low load resistance exercise; SMD: Standardized mean difference; SD: Standard deviation; IV: Inverse variance; CI: Confidence interval.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
LLRE-BFR: Low load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction; HLRE: High-load resistance exercise, LLRE: Low load resistance exercise; SMD: Standardized mean difference; SD: Standard deviation; IV: Inverse variance; CI: Confidence interval.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Five trials (n = 87) [36,37,39,40,45] assessed immediate post-exercise damage to proteins in LLRE-BFR versus HLRE. Our analysis provides very-low certainty of evidence (downgraded due imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias) that LLRE-BFR generates lower protein damage products when compared with HLRE, with a large effect size (SMD = -1.39 CI 95%: -2.11 to -0.68, I2 = 51%, p = 0.0001), see Fig 4. In addition, three studies (n = 55) [37,39,43] demonstrate LLRE-BFR promotes no difference compared with LLRE post-exercise (SMD = -0.43 CI 95%: -0.97 to 0.11, I2 = 0%, p = 0.12). These effects were based on low certainty of evidence (downgraded due imprecision and risk of bias). At other time points, we did not observe any differences between LLRE-BFR versus HLRE or LLRE (see Table 3).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
LLRE-BFR: Low load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction; HLRE: High-load resistance exercise, LLRE: Low load resistance exercise; SMD: Standardized mean difference; SD: Standard deviation; IV: Inverse variance; CI: Confidence interval.
Finally, we did not observe any differences between protocols in concentrations of sulfhydryl / thiols [39,43,45]. Furthermore, three pooled studies (n = 62) [38,46,47] provides low certainty (downgraded due imprecision and inconsistency) that LLRE-BFR promotes similar levels of NO as HLRE (SMD = 0.31 CI 95%: -0.20 to 0.80, I2 = 4%, p = 0.23), see Fig 5. In the other biomarkers and time points, none of the studies showed significant differences between LLRE-BFR versus HLRE and LLRE-BFR versus LLRE (see Table 3).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
LLRE-BFR: Low load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction; HLRE: High-load resistance exercise, LLRE: Low load resistance exercise; SMD: Standardized mean difference; SD: Standard deviation; IV: Inverse variance; CI: Confidence interval.
Effects of LLRE-BFR compared with HLRE and LLRE in endogenous antioxidants.
Studies measured antioxidant enzymes from superoxide dismutase [38,39] and catalase [38,39,43], as well as non-enzymatic antioxidants total glutathione [36] and uric acid [39,40,43]. In addition, three trials verified the total antioxidant capacity [41,44,45]. During data extraction, we observed that superoxide dismutase activity presented by Ramis et al. [39] was included in another study [38]. Therefore, we considered only the results from Ramis et al. [39], avoiding mistaken conclusions from duplication of data and conforming to recommendations of Cochrane’s Handbook for Systematic Reviews [23].
Superoxide dismutase activity was attenuated after LLRE-BFR compared to HLRE immediately post-exercise, and 24 hours and 48 hours post-exercise [39]. When compared with LLRE, LLRE-BFR presents similar responses in all post-exercise sampling times [39]. Catalase activity was measured in three studies [38,39,43]. The pooled results of two trials (n = 43) [38,39] provided low certainty of evidence (downgraded due imprecision and risk of bias) that there was not differences between LLRE-BFR and HLRE post-exercise (MD = -0.25 U catalase mg CI 95%: -1.81 to 1.30, I2 = 0%, p = 0.75). Three studies [38,39,43] (n = 53) showed similar effect between LLRE-BFR and LLRE (MD = 0.15 U catalase/mg CI 95%: -2.87 to 3.16, I2 = 62%, p = 0.92), see Fig 6. The certainty of evidence was rated as very low (downgraded due imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias). Only one trial (n = 11) [38] compared catalase activity changes after LLRE-BFR versus HLRE or LLRE at 24 hours and 48 hours post exercise and demonstrates no differences between them (Table 3).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
LLRE-BFR: Low load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction; HLRE: High-load resistance exercise, LLRE: Low load resistance exercise; MD: Mean difference; SD: Standard deviation; IV: Inverse variance; CI: Confidence interval.
Four studies (n = 62) [37,41,44,45] measured total antioxidant capacity activity, see Table 3. Total antioxidant capacity was measured through trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity assay [41,44], the oxygen radical absorbance capacity assay [37], and the plasma iron reduction ability [45]. Three trials compared LLRE-BFR versus HLRE immediately post-exercise [37,44,45] and one study 24 hours post-exercise [44]. LLRE-BFR versus LLRE was evaluated immediately [37], 24 hours [41] and 48 hours [41] post-exercise.
No differences between LLRE-BFR and LLRE were observed in any moments. Although three studies measured total antioxidant capacity immediately post-exercise in HLRE and LLRE-BFR, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. One study [42] did not provide data necessary to be included in a meta-analysis, even after we contacted the corresponding author via e-mail. Due to the high level of heterogeneity (I2 > 75%), we did not combine the results of the two remaining studies, but results are presented in Table 3 and provide low certainty of evidence (downgraded due imprecision and inconsistency).
The trial conducted by Nielsen et al. [44] reported an increase in total glutathione (reduced glutathione + oxidized glutathione) concentration immediately post-exercise in the HLRE group, but unchanged in LLRE-BFR group immediately- and 24 hours post-exercise. However, Lima et al. [45] demonstrated no difference between groups regarding reduced glutathione and oxidized glutathione levels post-exercise. Finally, Neto et al. [40] and Ramis et al. [43] demonstrated that uric acid levels did not show any significant differences between LLRE-BFR, LLRE and HLRE.
HLRE causes changes in the glutathione redox ratio biomarker, but LLRE-BFR does not.
Three trials (n = 37) [36,37,44] evaluated redox balance through glutathione redox ratio immediate post-exercise. The pooled results demonstrates that LLRE-BFR reduces the glutathione redox ratio with a large effect size (SMD = -1.12 CI 95%: -1.70 to -0.55, I2 = 0%, p = 0.0001) compared with HLRE, see Fig 7. When comparing LLRE-BFR with LLRE, there are no significant differences (p = 0.66). The certainty of evidence in this comparison was classified as low (downgraded due imprecision and risk of bias).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
LLRE-BFR: Low load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction; HLRE: High-load resistance exercise, LLRE: Low load resistance exercise; SMD: Standardized mean difference; SD: Standard deviation; IV: Inverse variance; CI: Confidence interval.
Certainty of evidence assessment.
The overall certainty of evidence for each biomarker in each comparison is presented in the S1 Table. In summary, the level of certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low due to imprecision, heterogeneity, or risk of bias. As none of the meta-analyses included more than 10 studies, Egger’s test could not be used to assess publication bias. Therefore, we assessed publication bias by evaluating the search strategy and use of industry funding; the results appear to indicate that none of the meta-analyses were affected by publication bias in this manner.
Discussion
This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to examine available scientific evidence about the effects of an acute session of LLRE-BFR on changes in oxidative stress biomarkers compared with traditional HLRE and LLRE. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review with meta-analysis on the topic. Our data suggests that an acute LLRE-BFR session promotes lower levels of lipid peroxidation and protein damage compared to HLRE and similar levels when compared to LLRE. On the other hand, one trial reported that an acute LLRE-BFR session promotes lower superoxide dismutase activity, but in remaining trials, similar responses in other biomarkers such as catalase and uric acid were recorded compared to HLRE. In addition, HLRE appears to promote greater redox imbalance in favor of oxidants than LLRE-BFR. For LLRE-BFR compared to LLRE, regardless of repetition scheme utilized (failure or non-failure), no differences were observed. Therefore, our data does not support the idea that reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation induced by LLRE-BFR are central in the upregulated signal transduction pathways responsible for muscle remodeling and for the adaptive responses observed during LLRE-BFR, at least with respect to the data collected in the studies included within this review.
Because LLRE-BFR can promote comparable adaptations to traditional HLRE despite a lower load [48], it has been hypothesized that increased ROS production may mediate this response [6]. ROS responses are thought to be due to the metabolic stress caused by hypoxia/ischemia in the muscle that may be potentiated by the venous restriction. Given that, we questioned whether a LLRE-BFR session would promote similar oxidative stress-induced damage than HLRE or LLRE.
Recently Groennebaek et al. [49] demonstrated that LLRE-BFR produced similar mitochondrial adaptations (i.e., elevated mitochondrial protein synthesis and respiratory function) following training theorized to be related to increased ROS production despite LLRE-BFR using a markedly lower load compared to HLRE. However, despite some trials exercising subjects to volitional failure, there was not a significant increase in markers of oxidative muscle damage after LLRE-BFR [37,45]. In contrast, Rodrigues et al. [17] demonstrated that forearm ischemic exercise generated increases in oxidation products (lipids concentrations) immediately post-exercise. However, after one-minute post-exercise, concentrations returned to their baseline value indicating that these elevations were transient. Petrick et al. [50] corroborates these findings, showing both maximal and submaximal mitochondrial ROS emission rates in human skeletal muscle tissue were acutely decreased 2 hours following LLRE-BFR, but not after HLRE. With respect to our data, our pooled analyses indicates that an acute session of LLRE-BFR promotes lower levels of lipid peroxidation and protein damage markers compared to HLRE. Accordingly, previous investigations have shown that resistance exercise with high intensities (load) can increase ROS production, regardless of training volume [51,52]. Therefore, ROS production in resistance training in non-failure protocols is primarily load dependent.
Conversely, the levels of oxidative markers found in this review after LLRE-BFR was similar to LLRE. However, LLRE-BFR induces earlier fatigue compared to LLRE [53]. Thus, it is possible that when subjects exercised to failure in LLRE [37,39,42], the metabolic responses were similar between conditions [54] and may explain the similar antioxidant and oxidative stress responses. Another study by Kolind et al. [55] supports this hypothesis and sheds light on possible similarities between mechanisms underlying LLRE with- and without BFR. Their research concluded that when both LLRE and LLRE-BFR are performed to failure, and normalized to time to task failure, muscle oxygenation, muscular excitability and blood pooling were similar despite LLRE-BFR performing ~43% less work. It is possible that in the lower volume studies (40 to 45 repetitions) conducted by Ramis et al. [43] and Freitas et al. [41], the presence or absence of BFR was insufficient to change redox status, producing no significant changes in concentration of biomarkers associated with oxidative damage and antioxidant defense. Thus, it appears that performing repetitions closer to failure may be a critical factor for inducing redox imbalance, that is, higher levels of ROS–although this is speculative and likely requires intra-exercise measurements to confirm or refute.
A question that remains is, if ROS production is not the pivotal mechanism to LLRE-BFR-induced muscle adaptation, how may it cause comparable adaptations to traditional HLRE? Centner et al. [18] suggests that LLRE-BFR may positively influence muscle remodeling and adaptations according to the hormesis principle [56]. The hormesis hypothesis proposes that beneficial muscle adaptations occur at an optimal ROS level but begin to become deleterious with additional accumulations, leading to various types of cellular damage declines in exercise-induced adaptation [57,58].
Other mechanisms associated with ROS production that contribute to increased strength and hypertrophy through LLRE-BFR are attributed increased rates of muscle protein synthesis, activating pathways similar to those activated after high-load strength training (i.e., signaling mammalian target of rapamycin complex-1 [mTORC1] and mitogen activated protein kinase) [59]. In this sense, studies conducted by Fry et al. [60] and Fujita et al. [61] demonstrated that exercise with BFR can increase protein synthesis and mTORC1 and mitogen activated protein kinase signaling pathways in elderly and young individuals, respectively. A recent study [59] compared the acute and chronic molecular and muscular hypertrophic and strength responses following a 7-week knee flexor/knee extensor resistance training program performed with LLRE-BFR and HLRE. Their research indicated that muscular hypertrophy and strength of the knee extensors/knee flexors increased similarly while the acute and molecular responses (i.e., mTORC1, ERK ½, JNK Phos/Total) following exercise were largely identical despite significantly different volumes (~43%) and metabolic stress. Therefore, enhanced anabolic molecular signaling may be an important cellular mechanism that may partly explain the hypertrophy induced by LLRE-BFR. However, some evidence suggests that ROS can activate or inhibit mTORC1. For example, there is evidence [62] demonstrating that low dose, short-term ROS exposure stimulates mTORC1 while high concentration, long-term exposures of ROS inhibits mTORC1 activity.
Indeed, this leads us to suggest that time of ischemia/BFR and the magnitude of loads used during LLRE-BFR likely determine ROS production during resistance training. The stimulus of training with BFR usually lasts from 10 to 20 minutes [6,7]. It is likely that the magnitude of the loads used (20–50% 1RM) together with the shorter time in local tissue ischemia, produce a stimulus that is unable to significantly increase the ROS concentrations associated with the aforementioned negative outcomes (i.e., myonecrosis). Previous studies support that the additional metabolic stress induced by LLRE-BFR does not have an additive effect when the resistance protocol is performed with high-load [16,63,64]. One of the possible mechanisms proposed in the literature to explain these results is that the reperfusion following the ischemic stimulus increases nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability and modulates mitochondrial oxygen consumption, leading to a reduction in ROS production and less oxidative damage to the cell [65]. Thus, it is possible that cuff deflation can generate increased vascular shear stress by positively regulating NO-induced vasodilation to promote additional venous blood flow which, in turn, may contribute to elimination of ROS [66]. Indeed, the effects of LLRE-BFR on NO metabolism are not yet fully understood, however the pooled data in our analysis [37,45,46] suggest that LLRE-BFR has a similar effect to HLRE in NO production.
Although able to generate lower levels of lipid and protein damage when compared to HLRE, one clinical trial demonstrated LLRE-BFR produced lower superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity when compared to HLRE, while we observed similar effects regarding endogenous antioxidants. This may seem expected given the greater increase in lipid, protein damage markers, and cellular redox imbalances promoted by HLRE. Greater SOD activity probably occurred to catalyze the dismutation of superoxide radicals (O2−•) and the formation of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). As a consequence of SOD activity, H2O2 is generated and dismutated by catalase or glutathione peroxidase (GPx) [67]. The action of these enzymes varies in relation to the concentration of H2O2, as GPx is more effective in low concentrations [58]. Considering that no change in catalase enzyme activity was observed after exercise comparing LLRE-BFR and HLRE, it is possible that GPx dismutated and formed H2O2. However, none of the studies included in this review evaluated GPX activity. Furthermore, included studies that measured antioxidant capacity showed heterogeneous results. It’s possible that the divergence of results may be impacted by the training status of the subjects and the impact of ROS overload on total antioxidant capacity. This partly explains our results, since one study with untrained subjects showed a greater post-exercise redox imbalance in favor of HLRE but not in LLRE-BFR [42].
It is well established that trained individuals are less susceptible to oxidative damage than untrained individuals due to a greater antioxidant defense capacity [68]. Therefore, untrained subjects are less effective at neutralizing ROS generated during exercise and may indicate that antioxidant enzymes are regulated by the redox status and not by the exercise itself, as suggested by Bessa et al. [14]. However, the current literature does not allow us to draw a firm conclusion on whether training status can influence LLRE-BFR-mediated redox responses. Investigating the effects of LLRE-BFR training on oxidative stress markers in both untrained and trained populations could further elucidate the relevancy of ROS and subsequent oxidative stress to the adaptation processes following LLRE-BFR.
Furthermore, there are no studies comparing the effects of the LLRE-BFR protocol to muscle failure versus a predefined repetition protocol on oxidative stress markers, but we observed that protocols conducted to failure or non-failure with LLRE-BFR were less likely to induce oxidative stress than HLRE. In contrast, we observed a tendency in HLRE to induce oxidative stress regardless of training status [42,44]. Finally, studies elucidating the effects of a long-term LLRE-BFR protocol on the modulation of redox system responses are needed and will help to understand the magnitude of the impact of LLRE-BFR on ROS generation.
The findings of this review can help coaches and professionals working in rehabilitation. Our findings suggest that LLRE-BFR can be a potentially useful strategy in exercise prescription as LLRE-BFR seems to attenuate ROS-induced cell damage and injury when compared to HLRE in healthy individuals. LLRE-BFR is mainly relevant in periods of intensive training and in the rehabilitation of musculoskeletal injuries (i.e., post-surgery conditions, in those suffering from arthritis, or in elderly frail individuals), where the chemical and enzymatic antioxidant defense system may be insufficient to combat the rise of free radicals induced by exercise [69,70]. This has important implications in clinical situations, since disturbances in redox homeostasis in favor of oxidants are associated with delayed muscle recovery, greater delayed onset muscle soreness, fatigue, and reduction in strength, affecting muscle performance [14,69].
In this way, the exercise-induced oxidative stress could likewise be relevant for exercise prescription. Although a HLRE session induces greater oxidative damage, it seems unlikely that this training modality amplifies oxidative stress enough to be harmful to human health given the many physiologic benefits observed with chronic training programs. In light of this, LLRE-BFR is considered a generally safe and effective resistance exercise approach that may aid in faster muscle recovery and similar benefits to HLRE given adoption of appropriate application parameters (i.e., load, pressure, and time under BFR) and high levels of effort during training [6]. However, compared to HLRE, LLRE with- or without BFR reduces ROS levels and could be a feasible strategy in practice if minimizing oxidative stress is desired.
Limitations and strength points
This systematic review and meta-analysis are not without limitations. It is important to note that the data included within this review comes from studies with methodological shortcomings and different forms of application of the BFR stimulus, highlighting the large heterogeneity within the current body of literature on LLRE-BFR. Most articles included within this review were considered to have fair quality with a mean PEDro score of ~5.53. Secondly, we included only up to three time points (post-, 24 hours, 48 hours) of oxidative marker responses. Conclusions on the time-course of oxidative stress outside of this period are scarce. Thirdly, we did not include studies that used aerobic exercise in this review, so the effects of BFR associated with aerobic exercise on oxidative stress biomarkers remain unclear. Future studies should ensure more rigorous research methodologies (i.e., follow the CONSORT checklist, description of size sample, etc.), including reporting and implementing all BFR-related prescriptions (i.e., justify the pressures of cuff, reporting cuff widths and whether the occlusive stimulus was applied throughout the entire exercise or deflated between rest periods) that are considered standard of practice.
The strengths of this review include a detailed search strategy using multiple databases and manual searches through manuscript reference lists without any publication or language restrictions. Second, this systematic review was pre-registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and all stages of this review followed PRISMA-P recommendations. Third, the quality of the evidence was carefully evaluated according to the GRADE approach. Last, we evaluated the effects of low-load exercise associated with LLRE-BFR compared to HLRE and LLRE on each biomarker separately, an approach that has not been performed systematically in any prior manuscripts.
Conclusion
In summary, based on low or very low certainty evidence, a LLRE-BFR session generates less oxidative damage and short-term (48 hours) redox imbalances than a HLRE session in healthy subjects. No significant differences in oxidative damage concentration and antioxidant response after exercise with LLRE-BFR compared to LLRE were observed. Furthermore, the results of our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that exercise-mediated ROS production is likely not a central mechanism for BFR-induced physiological adaptations such as muscle hypertrophy and muscle strength gain.
Supporting information
S1 Checklist. PRISMA checklist.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283237.s001
(DOCX)
S1 Table. Table certainty of evidence (GRADE system).
GRADE: Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation; SMD: Standardized mean difference; MD: Mean difference; BFR: Blood flow restriction HLRE: High-load resistance exercise LLRE: Low-load resistance exercise GSSG: Oxidized glutathione GSH: Reduced glutathione*More than 25% of participants from studies with low methodological quality (Physiotherapy Evidence Database score < 6 points).# Whether more 50% of participants were not similar to those about whom conclusions are drawn (I2 > 50%)† 75% of participants or less from studies with findings in the same direction.‡ Fewer than 400 participants for each outcome. n/a: Not applicable; was not performed due to the insufficient number of studies (<10 studies).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283237.s002
(DOCX)
S1 Search. Search strategy.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283237.s003
(DOCX)
Citation: Ferlito JV, Rolnick N, Ferlito MV, De Marchi T, Deminice R, Salvador M (2023) Acute effect of low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction on oxidative stress biomarkers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 18(4): e0283237. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283237
About the Authors:
João Vitor Ferlito
Contributed equally to this work with: João Vitor Ferlito, Nicholas Rolnick
Roles: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
E-mail: [email protected]
Affiliation: Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Laboratory, Postgraduate Program in Biotechnology, University of Caxias Do Sul, Caxias do Sul, Brazil
ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0570-2189
Nicholas Rolnick
Contributed equally to this work with: João Vitor Ferlito, Nicholas Rolnick
Roles: Conceptualization, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: The Human Performance Mechanic, Lehman College, New York, NY, United States of America
ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0430-5015
Marcos Vinicius Ferlito
Roles: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology
Affiliation: Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Laboratory, Postgraduate Program in Biotechnology, University of Caxias Do Sul, Caxias do Sul, Brazil
Thiago De Marchi
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft
Affiliation: Laboratory of Phototherapy and Innovative Technologies in Health (LaPIT), Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Nove de Julho University (UNINOVE), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
Rafael Deminice
Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Department of Physical Education, State University of Londrina, Londrina, Brazil
Mirian Salvador
Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft
Affiliation: Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Laboratory, Postgraduate Program in Biotechnology, University of Caxias Do Sul, Caxias do Sul, Brazil
1. Grønfeldt BM, Lindberg Nielsen J, Mieritz RM, Lund H, Aagaard P. Effect of blood-flow restricted vs heavy-load strength training on muscle strength: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Vol. 30, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports. Blackwell Munksgaard; 2020. p. 837–48. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32031709/. pmid:32031709
2. Hughes L, Paton B, Rosenblatt B, Gissane C, Patterson SD. Blood flow restriction training in clinical musculoskeletal rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2017 Jul;51(13):1003–11. Available from: pmid:28259850
3. Centner C, Wiegel P, Gollhofer A, König D. Effects of blood flow restriction training on muscular strength and hypertrophy in older individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2019 Jan;49(1):95–108. Available from: pmid:30306467
4. Scott BR, Loenneke JP, Slattery KM, Dascombe BJ. Blood flow restricted exercise for athletes: A review of available evidence. Vol. 19, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. Elsevier Ltd; 2016. p. 360–7. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26118847/. pmid:26118847
5. Scott BR, Slattery KM, Sculley DV, Dascombe BJ. Hypoxia and resistance exercise: a comparison of localized and systemic methods. Sports Med. 2014 Aug;44(8):1037–54. Available from: pmid:24715613
6. Patterson SD, Hughes L, Warmington S, Burr J, Scott BR, Owens J, et al. Blood flow restriction exercise position stand: Considerations of methodology, application, and safety. Vol. 10, Frontiers in Physiology. Frontiers Media S.A.; 2019. p. 533. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00533.
7. Rolnick N, Schoenfeld BJ. Blood flow restriction training and the physique athlete: A practical research-based guide to maximizing muscle size. Strength Cond J. 2020 Oct;42(5):22–36. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/ssc.0000000000000553.
8. Pearson SJ, Hussain SR. A review on the mechanisms of blood-flow restriction resistance training-induced muscle hypertrophy. Sports Med. 2015 Feb;45(2):187–200. Available from: pmid:25249278
9. Powers SK, Ji LL, Kavazis AN, Jackson MJ. Reactive oxygen species: impact on skeletal muscle. Compr Physiol. 2011 Apr;1(2):941–69. Available from: pmid:23737208
10. Pizzino G, Irrera N, Cucinotta M, Pallio G, Mannino F, Arcoraci V, et al. Oxidative stress: Harms and benefits for human health. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2017;2017:1–13. Available from: pmid:28819546
11. Hyatt H, Deminice R, Yoshihara T, Powers SK. Mitochondrial dysfunction induces muscle atrophy during prolonged inactivity: A review of the causes and effects. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2019 Feb 15;662:49–60. Available from: pmid:30452895
12. Kalogeris T, Baines CP, Krenz M, Korthuis RJ. Cell biology of ischemia/reperfusion injury. Int Rev Cell Mol Biol. 2012;298:229–317. Available from: pmid:22878108
13. Granger DN, Kvietys PR. Reperfusion injury and reactive oxygen species: The evolution of a concept. Redox Biol. 2015 Dec;6:524–51. Available from: pmid:26484802
14. Bessa AL, Oliveira VN, Agostini GG, Oliveira RJS, Oliveira ACS, White GE, et al. Exercise intensity and recovery: Biomarkers of injury, inflammation, and oxidative stress. J Strength Cond Res. 2016 Feb;30(2):311–9. Available from: pmid:23604000
15. Cayot TE, Lauver JD, Silette CR, Scheuermann BW. Effects of blood flow restriction duration on muscle activation and microvascular oxygenation during low-volume isometric exercise. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2016 Jul;36(4):298–305. Available from: pmid:25564998
16. Biazon TMPC, Ugrinowitsch C, Soligon SD, Oliveira RM, Bergamasco JG, Borghi-Silva A, et al. The association between muscle deoxygenation and muscle hypertrophy to blood flow restricted training performed at high and low loads. Front Physiol. 2019 Apr 17;10:446. Available from: pmid:31057426
17. Rodriguez MC, Rosenfeld J, Tarnopolsky MA. Plasma malondialdehyde increases transiently after ischemic forearm exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 Nov;35(11):1859–65. Available from: pmid:14600551
18. Centner C, Zdzieblik D, Dressler P, Fink B, Gollhofer A, König D. Acute effects of blood flow restriction on exercise-induced free radical production in young and healthy subjects. Free Radic Res. 2018 Apr;52(4):446–54. Available from: pmid:29448855
19. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 1;4(1):1. Available from: pmid:25554246
20. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016 Dec;5(1). Available from: pmid:27919275
21. Jelicic Kadic A, Vucic K, Dosenovic S, Sapunar D, Puljak L. Extracting data from figures with software was faster, with higher interrater reliability than manual extraction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jun;74:119–23. Available from: pmid:26780258
22. Moseley AM, Elkins MR, Van der Wees PJ, Pinheiro MB. Using research to guide practice: The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Braz J Phys Ther. 2020 Sep;24(5):384–91. Available from: pmid:31813695
23. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley; 2008. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184.
24. Faraone SV. Interpreting estimates of treatment effects: implications for managed care. P T. 2008 Dec;33(12):700–11. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19750051. pmid:19750051
25. Confidence interval calculator. PEDro. 2016 [cited 2022 Dec 18]. Available from: https://pedro.org.au/english/resources/confidence-interval-calculator/.
26. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):401–6. Available from: pmid:21208779
27. Zhang Y, Akl EA, Schünemann HJ. Using systematic reviews in guideline development: the GRADE approach. Res Synth Methods. 2018 Jul 14;10(3):312–29. Available from: pmid:30006970
28. Item F, Nocito A, Thöny S, Bächler T, Boutellier U, Wenger RH, et al. Combined whole-body vibration, resistance exercise, and sustained vascular occlusion increases PGC-1α and VEGF mRNA abundances. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013 Apr;113(4):1081–90. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00421-012-2524-4.
29. Cumming KT, Ellefsen S, Rønnestad BR, Ugelstad I, Raastad T. Acute and long-term effects of blood flow restricted training on heat shock proteins and endogenous antioxidant systems. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017 Nov;27(11):1190–201. Available from: pmid:27726197
30. Barili A, Corralo V da S, Cardoso AM, Mânica A, Bonadiman B da SR, Bagatini MD, et al. Acute responses of hemodynamic and oxidative stress parameters to aerobic exercise with blood flow restriction in hypertensive elderly women. Mol Biol Rep. 2018 Oct;45(5):1099–109. Available from: pmid:30030775
31. Christiansen D, Murphy RM, Bangsbo J, Stathis CG, Bishop DJ. Increased FXYD1 and PGC-1α mRNA after blood flow-restricted running is related to fibre type-specific AMPK signalling and oxidative stress in human muscle. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2018 Jun;223(2):e13045. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apha.13045.
32. Corrêa HL, Neves RVP, Deus LA, Maia BCH, Maya AT, Tzanno-Martins C, et al. Low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction prevent renal function decline: The role of the redox balance, angiotensin 1–7 and vasopressin✰,✰✰. Physiol Behav. 2021 Mar 1;230(113295):113295. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.113295.
33. Hashemvarzi A. The effect of eight weeks occlusion strength training on oxidative stress responses to a graded maximal exercise test in overweight men. 2018;7(4):71–8. Available from: https://www.proquest.com/openview/3717fbdd743b7d3ad9b7947d504bfce9/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2045597.
34. Kim T-H, Lee S-H, Kim Y-J, Kim S-J, Kang J-H, Kwak H-B, et al. Effect of acute resistance exercise with different level of blood flow restriction on acute changes in muscle thickness, blood lactate, CK, and oxidative stress in male adults. Exerc Sci. 2018 Feb 28;27(1):50–61. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.15857/ksep.2018.27.1.50.
35. Lopes KG, Farinatti P, Bottino DA, de das GC Souza M, Maranhão P, Bouskela E, et al. Exercise with blood flow restriction improves muscle strength and mass while preserving the vascular and microvascular function and structure of older adults. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2022;82(1):13–26. Available from: pmid:35599474
36. Goldfarb AH, Garten RS, Chee PDM, Cho C, Reeves GV, Hollander DB, et al. Resistance exercise effects on blood glutathione status and plasma protein carbonyls: influence of partial vascular occlusion. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008 Nov;104(5):813–9. Available from: pmid:18661144
37. Garten RS, Goldfarb A, Crabb B, Waller J. The impact of partial vascular occlusion on oxidative stress markers during resistance exercise. Int J Sports Med. 2015 Jun;36(7):542–9. Available from: pmid:25806587
38. Boeno FP, Ramis TR, Farinha JB, de Lemos LS, Medeiros N da S, Ribeiro JL. Efeito agudo do exercício de força com restrição do fluxo sanguíneo sobre parâmetros antioxidantes em indivíduos jovens saudáveis. J Vasc Bras. 2018 Apr;17(2):122–7. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1677-5449.011017.
39. Ramis TR, da Silva Medeiros N, Henrique de Lemos Muller C, Boeno F, Silveira D, Griebeler Souza L, et al. Effects of acute exercise with blood flow restriction on oxidative stress biomarkers. Int J Sports Sci. 2017 Oct 1;7(5):191–5. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.sports.20170705.03.
40. Neto GR, Novaes JS, Salerno VP, Gonçalves MM, Batista GR, Cirilo-Sousa MS. Does a resistance exercise session with continuous or intermittent blood flow restriction promote muscle damage and increase oxidative stress? J Sports Sci. 2018 Jan;36(1):104–10. Available from: pmid:28143367
41. Freitas EDS. Resistance exercise performed at different degrees of arterial occlusion pressure does not induce prolonged oxidative stress or muscle damage. Int J Sports Exerc Med. 2017 Oct 31;3(5). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.23937/2469-5718/1510075.
42. Takarada Y, Nakamura Y, Aruga S, Onda T, Miyazaki S, Ishii N. Rapid increase in plasma growth hormone after low-intensity resistance exercise with vascular occlusion. J Appl Physiol. 2000 Jan;88(1):61–5. Available from: pmid:10642363
43. Ramis TR, Silveira DF, Muller CHL, Oliveira ÁR, Ribeiro JL. Efeito Agudo do Exercício de Força com Oclusão Vascular nos Marcadores de Estresse Oxidativo e Lesão Muscular. Ciênc em Mov. 2014 Jun 30;16(32):59–69. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.15602/1983-9480/cmrs.v16n32p59-69.
44. Nielsen JL, Aagaard P, Prokhorova TA, Nygaard T, Bech RD, Suetta C, et al. Blood flow restricted training leads to myocellular macrophage infiltration and upregulation of heat shock proteins, but no apparent muscle damage. J Physiol. 2017 Jul 15;595(14):4857–73. Available from: pmid:28481416
45. de Lima FR, Marin DP, Ferreira LT, Sousa Filho CPB, Astorino TA, Prestes J, et al. Effect of resistance training with total and partial blood flow restriction on biomarkers of oxidative stress and apoptosis in untrained men. Front Physiol. 2021 Sep 9;12:720773. Available from: pmid:34566685
46. Ozaki H, Yasuda T, Ogasawara R, Sakamaki-Sunaga M, Naito H, Abe T. Effects of high-intensity and blood flow-restricted low-intensity resistance training on carotid arterial compliance: role of blood pressure during training sessions. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013 Jan;113(1):167–74. Available from: pmid:22618304
47. Ramis TR, Muller CH de L, Boeno FP, Teixeira BC, Rech A, Pompermayer MG, et al. Effects of traditional and vascular restricted strength training program with equalized volume on isometric and dynamic strength, muscle thickness, electromyographic activity, and endothelial function adaptations in young adults. J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Mar;34(3):689–98. Available from: pmid:30063556
48. Lixandrão ME, Ugrinowitsch C, Berton R, Vechin FC, Conceição MS, Damas F, et al. Magnitude of Muscle Strength and Mass Adaptations Between High-Load Resistance Training Versus Low-Load Resistance Training Associated with Blood-Flow Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Vol. 48, Sports Medicine. Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 361–78. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29043659/. pmid:29043659
49. Groennebaek T, Jespersen NR, Jakobsgaard JE, Sieljacks P, Wang J, Rindom E, et al. Skeletal muscle mitochondrial protein synthesis and respiration increase with low-load blood flow restricted as well as high-load resistance training. Front Physiol. 2018 Dec 17;9:1796. Available from: pmid:30618808
50. Petrick HL, Pignanelli C, Barbeau P-A, Churchward-Venne TA, Dennis KMJH, van Loon LJC, et al. Blood flow restricted resistance exercise and reductions in oxygen tension attenuate mitochondrial H2 O2 emission rates in human skeletal muscle. J Physiol. 2019 Aug;597(15):3985–97. Available from: pmid:31194254
51. Hoffman JR, Im J, Kang J, Maresh CM, Kraemer WJ, French D, et al. Comparison of low- and high-intensity resistance exercise on lipid peroxidation: role of muscle oxygenation. J Strength Cond Res. 2007 Feb;21(1):118–22. Available from: pmid:17313297
52. Güzel NA, Hazar S, Erbas D. Effects of different resistance exercise protocols on nitric oxide, lipid peroxidation and creatine kinase activity in sedentary males. J Sports Sci Med. 2007 Dec 1;6(4):417–22. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24149472. pmid:24149472
53. Cerqueira MS, Maciel DG, Barboza JAM, Centner C, Lira M, Pereira R, et al. Low-load blood-flow restriction exercise to failure and nonfailure and myoelectric activity: A meta-analysis. J Athl Train. 2022 Apr 1;57(4):402–17. Available from: pmid:34038945
54. Loenneke JP, Kearney ML, Thrower AD, Collins S, Pujol TJ. The acute response of practical occlusion in the knee extensors. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Oct;24(10):2831–4. Available from: pmid:20885201
55. Kolind MI, Gam S, Phillip JG, Pareja-Blanco F, Olsen HB, Gao Y, et al. Effects of low load exercise with and without blood-flow restriction on microvascular oxygenation, muscle excitability and perceived pain. EJSS (Champaign). 2022 Feb 6;1–21. Available from: pmid:35125067
56. Radak Z, Chung HY, Koltai E, Taylor AW, Goto S. Exercise, oxidative stress and hormesis. Ageing Res Rev. 2008 Jan;7(1):34–42. Available from: pmid:17869589
57. Kawamura T, Muraoka I. Exercise-induced oxidative stress and the effects of antioxidant intake from a physiological viewpoint. Antioxidants (Basel). 2018 Sep 5;7(9). Available from: pmid:30189660
58. Powers SK, Duarte J, Kavazis AN, Talbert EE. Reactive oxygen species are signalling molecules for skeletal muscle adaptation. Exp Physiol. 2010 Jan;95(1):1–9. Available from: pmid:19880534
59. May AK, Russell AP, Della Gatta PA, Warmington SA. Muscle adaptations to heavy-load and blood flow restriction resistance training methods. Front Physiol. 2022 Feb 3;13:837697. Available from: pmid:35185627
60. Fry CS, Glynn EL, Drummond MJ, Timmerman KL, Fujita S, Abe T, et al. Blood flow restriction exercise stimulates mTORC1 signaling and muscle protein synthesis in older men. J Appl Physiol. 2010 May;108(5):1199–209. Available from: pmid:20150565
61. Fujita S, Abe T, Drummond MJ, Cadenas JG, Dreyer HC, Sato Y, et al. Blood flow restriction during low-intensity resistance exercise increases S6K1 phosphorylation and muscle protein synthesis. J Appl Physiol. 2007 Sep;103(3):903–10. Available from: pmid:17569770
62. Li M, Zhao L, Liu J, Liu A, Jia C, Ma D, et al. Multi-mechanisms are involved in reactive oxygen species regulation of mTORC1 signaling. Cell Signal. 2010 Oct;22(10):1469–76. Available from: pmid:20639120
63. Teixeira EL, Barroso R, Silva-Batista C, Laurentino GC, Loenneke JP, Roschel H, et al. Blood flow restriction increases metabolic stress but decreases muscle activation during high‐load resistance exercise. Muscle Nerve. 2018 Jan;57(1):107–11. Available from: pmid:28214295
64. Teixeira EL, Ugrinowitsch C, de Salles Painelli V, Silva-Batista C, Aihara AY, Cardoso FN, et al. Blood flow restriction does not promote additional effects on muscle adaptations when combined with high-load resistance training regardless of blood flow restriction protocol. J Strength Cond Res. 2021 May 1;35(5):1194–200. Available from: pmid:33900254
65. Raat NJH, Shiva S, Gladwin MT. Effects of nitrite on modulating ROS generation following ischemia and reperfusion. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2009 Apr 28;61(4):339–50. Available from: pmid:19385092
66. da Cunha Nascimento D, Schoenfeld BJ, Prestes J. Potential implications of blood flow restriction exercise on vascular health: A brief review. Sports Med. 2020 Jan;50(1):73–81. Available from: pmid:31559565
67. Kozakowska M, Pietraszek-Gremplewicz K, Jozkowicz A, Dulak J. The role of oxidative stress in skeletal muscle injury and regeneration: focus on antioxidant enzymes. J Muscle Res Cell Motil. 2015 Dec;36(6):377–93. Available from: pmid:26728750
68. Spanidis Y, Stagos D, Papanikolaou C, Karatza K, Theodosi A, Veskoukis AS, et al. Resistance-trained individuals are less susceptible to oxidative damage after eccentric exercise. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2018 Jul 17;2018:1–11. Available from: pmid:30116488
69. Wang F, Wang X, Liu Y, Zhang Z. Effects of exercise-induced ROS on the pathophysiological functions of skeletal muscle. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2021 Oct 1;2021:3846122. Available from: pmid:34630848
70. Taherkhani S, Valaei K, Arazi H, Suzuki K. An overview of physical exercise and antioxidant supplementation influences on skeletal muscle oxidative stress. Antioxidants (Basel). 2021 Sep 27;10(10):1528. Available from: pmid:34679663
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2023 Ferlito et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Background
The purpose of this review was to analyze the acute effects of low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (LLE-BFR) on oxidative stress markers in healthy individuals in comparison with LLE or high-load resistance exercise (HLRE) without BFR.
Materials and methods
A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. These searches were performed in CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL and Virtual Health Library- VHL, which includes Lilacs, Medline and SciELO. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed through the PEDro scale and GRADE system, respectively.
Results
Thirteen randomized clinical trials were included in this review (total n = 158 subjects). Results showed lower post-exercise damage to lipids (SMD = -0.95 CI 95%: -1.49 to -0. 40, I2 = 0%, p = 0.0007), proteins (SMD = -1.39 CI 95%: -2.11 to -0.68, I2 = 51%, p = 0.0001) and redox imbalance (SMD = -0.96 CI 95%: -1.65 to -0.28, I2 = 0%, p = 0.006) in favor of LLRE-BFR compared to HLRE. HLRE presents higher post-exercise superoxide dismutase activity but in the other biomarkers and time points, no significant differences between conditions were observed. For LLRE-BFR and LLRE, we found no difference between the comparisons performed at any time point.
Conclusions
Based on the available evidence from randomized trials, providing very low or low certainty of evidence, this review demonstrates that LLRE-BFR promotes less oxidative stress when compared to HLRE but no difference in levels of oxidative damage biomarkers and endogenous antioxidants between LLRE.
Trial registration
Register number: PROSPERO number: CRD42020183204.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Rolnick, Nicholas
; Ferlito, Marcos Vinicius; De Marchi, Thiago; Deminice, Rafael; Salvador, Mirian