Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2026
Effects of calcium-regulating pulsed electromagnetic field combined with low-load blood flow restriction training on strength and performance adaptations in adolescent sprinters.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Wenhao, Huo Ran, Yan Kun, Wang Fucheng, Li Xiupeng, Suo Jiyuan, Tang Jiakai, Ding Lupei, Du Xinran, Sun Shiqiang, Chen Jiacheng, Li Zhongshan, Yin Mingyue, Kong Weiqian, Bai Shi, Girard Olivier
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: When recovery capacity is limited during the competitive season, low-load blood flow restriction training (LL-BFR) is increasingly used as an alternative to high-load resistance training (HL-RT). This study examined whether combining calcium-regulating pulsed electromagnetic field (Ca-R-PEMF) with LL-BFR further enhances maximal strength and its transfer to jumping and anaerobic performance.
METHODS: Forty-six adolescent sprinters were randomly assigned to high-load resistance training [80% one-repetition maximum (1RM)], LL-BFR [30% 1RM; 30-15-15-15 repetitions; cuff pressure = 80% limb occlusion pressure], or Ca-R-PEMF + LL-BFR. All groups completed three sessions per week for four weeks. The primary outcome was 1RM, and secondary outcomes included lower-limb maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), jumping performance, and 30-s Wingate-derived outcomes. Between-group effects were analyzed using baseline-adjusted ANCOVA.
RESULTS: After baseline adjustment, a significant between-group effect was observed for 1RM. HL-RT produced greater gains than LL-BFR (Adjusted Mean Difference = 12.20 kg, 95% CI: 4.11 to 20.29; p = 0.002), while Ca-R-PEMF + LL-BFR did not differ statistically from HL-RT (p = 0.243). For knee extensor MVIC, Ca-R-PEMF + LL-BFR exceeded LL-BFR (p = 0.033) and did not differ statistically from HL-RT; for plantar flexor MVIC, Ca-R-PEMF + LL-BFR exceeded HL-RT (p = 0.005). Squat jump height improved more with Ca-R-PEMF + LL-BFR than LL-BFR (p = 0.017), whereas no clear between-group effects were observed for countermovement jump height or standing broad jump distance. Wingate peak power was higher with Ca-R-PEMF + LL-BFR than LL-BFR (p = 0.011), while both BFR conditions showed lower fatigue indices than HL-RT.
CONCLUSION: Over four weeks, Ca-R-PEMF + LL-BFR did not differ statistically from HL-RT for 1RM, and improved selected isometric strength measures, jump, and 30-s Wingate-derived outcomes compared with LL-BFR alone, without increasing external load in adolescent sprinters.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300078947). Ethics approval was granted by the Bioethics and Medical Ethics Committee of Northeastern University (NEU-EC-2025B069).
METHODS: Forty-six adolescent sprinters were randomly assigned to high-load resistance training [80% one-repetition maximum (1RM)], LL-BFR [30% 1RM; 30-15-15-15 repetitions; cuff pressure = 80% limb occlusion pressure], or Ca-R-PEMF + LL-BFR. All groups completed three sessions per week for four weeks. The primary outcome was 1RM, and secondary outcomes included lower-limb maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), jumping performance, and 30-s Wingate-derived outcomes. Between-group effects were analyzed using baseline-adjusted ANCOVA.
RESULTS: After baseline adjustment, a significant between-group effect was observed for 1RM. HL-RT produced greater gains than LL-BFR (Adjusted Mean Difference = 12.20 kg, 95% CI: 4.11 to 20.29; p = 0.002), while Ca-R-PEMF + LL-BFR did not differ statistically from HL-RT (p = 0.243). For knee extensor MVIC, Ca-R-PEMF + LL-BFR exceeded LL-BFR (p = 0.033) and did not differ statistically from HL-RT; for plantar flexor MVIC, Ca-R-PEMF + LL-BFR exceeded HL-RT (p = 0.005). Squat jump height improved more with Ca-R-PEMF + LL-BFR than LL-BFR (p = 0.017), whereas no clear between-group effects were observed for countermovement jump height or standing broad jump distance. Wingate peak power was higher with Ca-R-PEMF + LL-BFR than LL-BFR (p = 0.011), while both BFR conditions showed lower fatigue indices than HL-RT.
CONCLUSION: Over four weeks, Ca-R-PEMF + LL-BFR did not differ statistically from HL-RT for 1RM, and improved selected isometric strength measures, jump, and 30-s Wingate-derived outcomes compared with LL-BFR alone, without increasing external load in adolescent sprinters.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300078947). Ethics approval was granted by the Bioethics and Medical Ethics Committee of Northeastern University (NEU-EC-2025B069).