Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 182

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Blood flow restricted resistance training in older adults at risk of mobility limitations

Open access
Cook, Summer B., LaRoche, Dain P., Villa, Michelle R., Barile, Hannah, Manini, Todd M.·2017·Experimental Gerontology

Abstract

ABSTRACT High‐load resistance training (HL) may be contraindicated in older adults due to pre‐existing health conditions (e.g. osteoarthritis). Low‐load blood flow restricted (BFR) resistance training offers an alternative to HL with potentially similar strength improvement. Purpose: To compare muscle strength, cross‐sectional area (CSA), physical function, and quality of life (QOL) following 12‐weeks of HL or BFR training in older adults at risk of mobility limitations. Methods: Thirty‐six males and females (mean: 75.6 years 95% confidence interval: [73.4–78.5], 1.67 m [1.64–1.70], 74.3 kg [69.8–78.8]) were randomly assigned to HL (70% of one repetition maximum [1‐RM]) or low‐load BFR (30% 1‐RM coupled with a vascular restriction) exercise for the knee extensors and flexors twice per week for 12 weeks. A control (CON) group performed light upper body resistance and flexibility training. Muscle strength, CSA of the quadriceps, 400‐m walking speed, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), and QOL were assessed before, midway and after training. Results: Within 6‐weeks of HL training, increases in all strength measures and CSA were evident and the gains were significantly greater than the CON group (P < 0.05). The BFR group had strength increases in leg extension and leg press 1‐RM tests, but were significantly lower in leg extension isometric maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) and leg extension 1‐RM than the HL group (P < 0.01). At 12‐weeks HL and BFR training did not differ in MVC (P = 0.14). Walking speed increased 4% among all training groups (P < 0.01) and no changes were observed for overall SPPB score and QOL (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Both training programs resulted in muscle CSA improvements and HL training had more pronounced strength gains than BFR training after 6‐weeks and were more similar to BFR after 12‐weeks of training. These changes in both groups did not transfer to improvements in QOL, SPPB, and walking speed. Since both programs result in strength and CSA gains, albeit at different rates, future research should consider using a combination of HL and BFR training in older adults with profound muscle weakness and mobility limitations. HighlightsHigh‐load and low‐load blood flow restricted resistance training was compared.Both training programs resulted in similar cross‐sectional area of the quadriceps.Most strength adaptations were apparent within 6‐weeks.Strength was highest after high‐load training but not different than blood flow restricted training.Training did not impact physical function and quality of life in older adults.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.exger.2017.10.004

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

See all 182

Metadata

Authors
Cook, S. B., LaRoche, D. P., Villa, M. R., Barile, H., & Manini, T. M.
Venue
Experimental Gerontology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
99
Pages
138-145
ISSN
0531-5565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2762884824
Cited by
182
References
9
FWCI
15.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Blood flow restricted resistance training in older adults at risk of mobility limitations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.exger.2017.10.004
The paper
Cook, S. B., LaRoche, D. P., Villa, M. R., Barile, H., & Manini, T. M. (2017). Blood flow restricted resistance training in older adults at risk of mobility limitations. Experimental Gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2017.10.004

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.