ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Central and peripheral vascular recovery following resistance exercise with and without blood flow restriction across age groups: a parallel group crossover randomized trial.
Article 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. It is linked to trial NCT06596304 (Comparing Macro- and Microvascular Responses to Acute Resistance Exercise with and Without Blood Flow Restriction in Young and Older Adults), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Comparing Macro- and Microvascular Responses to Acute Resistance Exercise with and Without Blood Flow Restriction in Young and Older Adults: a Parallel Group Crossover Randomized Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHigh-intensity resistance training (HIRT) benefits musculoskeletal and vascular health but may be poorly tolerated by older adults. Low-intensity resistance training (LIRT) is an alternative, yet evidence on arterial stiffness is mixed, and it often fails to improve vascular health due to insufficient stimulus. Blood flow restriction (BFR) enhances hemodynamic stimulus, but its acute cardiovascular effects in older adults remain unclear. PURPOSE: To compare central and peripheral vascular responses following acute LIRT with BFR versus HIRT across age groups.
methodsIn a randomized crossover design, 19 young (22±3 years) and 19 older (70±9 years) adults completed three sessions: HIRT (3 × 10 reps at 75%1RM), LIRT+BFR (4 × 20 reps at 30%1RM with continuous cuff occlusion), and no exercise. Central and peripheral vascular function were assessed via oscillometric pulse wave analysis at rest, 5-min (RECOV1), and 30-min (RECOV2) post-exercise.
resultsIn older adults, neither HIRT nor LIRT+BFR altered total peripheral resistance (TPR), aortic reservoir function, or subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR) throughout post-exercise, with no differences observed between conditions. Conversely, young adults exhibited reductions at RECOV1 following HIRT in TPR (Δ = - 0.176 PRU), reservoir function (Δ = - 11.9%), and SEVR (Δ = - 47.1%), persisting at RECOV2 (all p < 0.05). LIRT+BFR elicited minor changes. Most variables normalized within 30 min for both groups.
conclusionIn older adults, LIRT+BFR elicits post acute central vascular responses comparable to HIRT, with stable coronary perfusion and rapid recovery supporting the short-term tolerability of both modalities. LIRT+BFR thus represents a viable alternative to HIRT for older population.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT06596304).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42870054What 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.