Evidence Hub

Physiological adaptations and performance enhancement with combined blood flow restricted and interval training: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Yin M, Deng S, Deng J, Xu K, Nassis GP, Girard O, Li Y

Journal of sport and health science, 2025

621 participants · 21 citations

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to determine: (a) the chronic effects of interval training (IT) combined with blood flow restriction (BFR) on physiological adaptations (aerobic/anaerobic capacity and muscle responses) and performance enhancement (endurance and sprints), and (b) the influence of participant characteristics and intervention protocols on these effects.

Methods: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science (Core Collection), Cochrane Library (Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure on April 2, with updates on October 17, 2024. Pooled effects for each outcome were summarized using Hedge's g (g) through meta-analysis-based random effects models, and subgroup and regression analyses were used to explore moderators.

Results: A total of 24 studies with 621 participants were included. IT combined with BFR (IT+BFR) significantly improved maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) (g = 0.63, I2 = 63%), mean power during the Wingate 30-s test (g = 0.70, I2 = 47%), muscle strength (g = 0.88, I2 = 64%), muscle endurance (g = 0.43, I2 = 0%), time to fatigue (g = 1.26, I2 = 86%), and maximal aerobic speed (g = 0.74, I2 = 0%) compared to IT alone. Subgroup analysis indicated that participant characteristics including training status, IT intensity, and IT modes significantly moderated VO2max (subgroup differences: p 2max compared to IT alone in trained individuals (g = 0.76) at supra-maximal intensity (g =…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 621 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free