Research
Neural
Muscle strength (1 repetition maximum) increased more in HL-RT (13.7 ± 5.9%) compared to LL-BFR (6.9 ± 4.1%).
For optimal strength gains, practitioners may prefer HL-RT over LL-BFR.
StrongSupportsmedium confidence
Absolute changes for 1RM in HL-RT were greater than LL-BFR (p = 0.001).
Why this rating
Based on the study design comparing strength outcomes of different training protocols.
Source
Perceptual and Neuromuscular Responses Adapt Similarly Between High-Load Resistance Training and Low-Load Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction
Emerson Luiz Teixeira et al. · The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2020
DOI 10.1519/jsc.0000000000003879
other · n=16Cited 28×
Read the paper DOI resolved against Crossref · corpus check 2026-06-10
More from this paper
- Low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) produces lower rating of perceived exertion (RPE) values (6.8 ± 1.1) compared to high-load resistance training (HL-RT) (8.1 ± 0.8) before training.Strong
- Both LL-BFR and HL-RT resulted in similar increases in quadriceps cross-sectional area (QCSA) (7.0 ± 3.8% for LL-BFR and 6.3 ± 4.1% for HL-RT).Strong
Related findings · Neural
This is one finding among thousands. Every one is graded and traced to its source, so you can see what the evidence actually supports. Browse the research →