Frontiers in physiology · 2026
Effects of low-load blood flow restriction resistance training on lower limb morphology and functional performance in male college table tennis athletes: a three-arm randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Qu Hongjian, Wang Hong, Zhao Lei, Sun Rui
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: High-load resistance training (HL-RT) is commonly utilized to enhance performance in competitive table tennis athletes. Low-load blood flow restriction training (BFR-RT) has emerged as an alternative approach under lower mechanical loads. Considering the importance of explosive power and rapid movements in table tennis, it is essential to evaluate how BFR-RT compares with traditional HL-RT in terms of strength, muscle hypertrophy, jump, and sprint performance. This study aimed to directly compare the effects of HL-RT and BFR-RT in male college table tennis players.
METHODS: 24 male college table tennis players were randomly divided into a BFR-RT group (n=8), HL-RT group (n=8), or control group (CON, n=8). Both BFR-RT and HL-RT groups performed RT, including squats, leg presses, and leg extensions, twice weekly for eight weeks. The BFR-RT group performed training at 30% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) with blood flow restriction, while the HL-RT group trained at 80% 1RM. The CON group engaged solely in regular table tennis training. Outcome measures-1RM, quadriceps cross-sectional area (QCSA), countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and 10-meter sprint time (T10m)-were assessed at baseline and post-intervention.
RESULTS: Significant group × time interaction effects were observed for 1RM, QCSA, CMJ height, and T10m (all p < 0.01). The HL-RT group demonstrated a significantly greater increase in 1RM than the BFR-RT group (20.5% vs. 12.9%, p < 0.01). In contrast, improvements in QCSA (+10.1% vs. +9.5%), CMJ height (+11.2% vs. +10.5%), and T10m (-5.1% vs. -4.8%) did not differ significantly between groups (p > 0.05). The CON group showed no significant changes in any variable.
CONCLUSION: HL-RT appears to be effective for promoting strength development, while low-load BFR-RT may serve as a potential alternative to traditional HL-RT for enhancing muscle hypertrophy, as well as jump and sprint performance in competitive table tennis athletes.
METHODS: 24 male college table tennis players were randomly divided into a BFR-RT group (n=8), HL-RT group (n=8), or control group (CON, n=8). Both BFR-RT and HL-RT groups performed RT, including squats, leg presses, and leg extensions, twice weekly for eight weeks. The BFR-RT group performed training at 30% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) with blood flow restriction, while the HL-RT group trained at 80% 1RM. The CON group engaged solely in regular table tennis training. Outcome measures-1RM, quadriceps cross-sectional area (QCSA), countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and 10-meter sprint time (T10m)-were assessed at baseline and post-intervention.
RESULTS: Significant group × time interaction effects were observed for 1RM, QCSA, CMJ height, and T10m (all p < 0.01). The HL-RT group demonstrated a significantly greater increase in 1RM than the BFR-RT group (20.5% vs. 12.9%, p < 0.01). In contrast, improvements in QCSA (+10.1% vs. +9.5%), CMJ height (+11.2% vs. +10.5%), and T10m (-5.1% vs. -4.8%) did not differ significantly between groups (p > 0.05). The CON group showed no significant changes in any variable.
CONCLUSION: HL-RT appears to be effective for promoting strength development, while low-load BFR-RT may serve as a potential alternative to traditional HL-RT for enhancing muscle hypertrophy, as well as jump and sprint performance in competitive table tennis athletes.