Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Submaximal low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction produces similar results to low-load exercise to failure for muscle size and strength, but not endurance.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rethinking task failure in resistance training research: a framework for submaximal exercise prescription.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine the effects of submaximal low-load resistance exercise with and without blood flow restriction (BFR) on muscle size, strength, cross-education of strength, and muscular endurance with BFR compared to low-load exercise to failure.
methods144 participants were randomly assigned to: (1) submaximal low-load exercise (LL, n = 37), (2) submaximal low-load exercise with BFR (LL + BFR, n = 35), (3) low-load exercise to failure (LL-Failure, n = 36), and (4) non-exercise control (CON, n = 36). Training consisted of 2 sets of 30% 1RM elbow flexion exercise, performed 3 days/week for 6 weeks. Repetitions performed by the submaximal groups were based on the muscular endurance test with BFR during pre-testing (70% of maximal BFR repetitions in week 1 and 95% in week 6).
resultsLL + BFR led to greater increases in muscle thickness (0.14 cm) compared to LL (0.06 cm), and was comparable to LL-Failure (0.17 cm). 1RM strength gains were greater in LL (0.45 kg), LL + BFR (0.54 kg), and LL-Failure (0.34 kg) compared to CON (-0.36 kg), with no differences between training groups. There was no evidence of cross-education of strength. Changes in muscular endurance with BFR were greatest in LL-Failure (16.5 reps), followed by LL + BFR (10.0 reps), LL (4.2 reps), and CON (-0.03 reps).
conclusionThe effectiveness of BFR during submaximal exercise may depend on the specific adaptation targeted. Submaximal BFR produced muscle growth comparable to failure training. Neither BFR nor proximity to failure was necessary to maximize strength gains. Muscular endurance with BFR increased in all training groups, but improved the most with failure training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.