Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Explosive Power in Athletes: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis
Journal of strength and conditioning research · 2026
BFRT gives athletes a modest power boost (SMD ~0.5), useful as a low-load option during rehab or load management, not a replacement for heavy training.
The paper
Systematic review with meta-analysis, 20 RCTs, n=362 competitive athletes, examining blood flow restriction training (BFRT) effects on explosive power outcomes.
What they found
BFRT produced a small-to-moderate overall improvement in explosive performance (SMD = 0.46), with significant benefits for vertical jump (SMD = 0.52), 30 m sprint (SMD = -0.52), change of direction (SMD = -0.46), and mean explosive power (SMD = 0.54). Effects were larger with ≥3 sessions/week for over 6 weeks, and cuff pressures above 150 mm Hg favoured power/MEP while lower pressures favoured COD and standing long jump.
The appraisal
This is a reasonably built meta-analysis using multi-level random-effects models to handle dependent outcomes from the same trials, which is methodologically sound for this kind of dataset. But 362 athletes across 20 trials averages to roughly 18 per study, and the moderator analyses (frequency, duration, pressure, cuff width) chop that small pool into even smaller subgroups, so those interaction findings are exploratory at best and vulnerable to false positives. No heterogeneity statistics (I2), risk-of-bias grading, or publication bias assessment (funnel plot, Egger's test) are reported in the abstract, which matters a lot when pooling across such varied sports and outcome measures. The abstract also doesn't state what BFRT was compared against, matched-volume conventional training, no training, or a sham/low-pressure cuff, and that comparator choice changes the practical meaning of every SMD reported. The cuff pressure findings (>150 mm Hg vs ≤150 mm Hg) are reported as flat absolute pressures rather than individualised to limb occlusion pressure (LOP), which is the accepted way to dose BFR safely and consistently across athletes of different limb girths, so there's a real translation gap between what was tested and what a coach can safely replicate. The SMDs themselves are small-to-moderate, statistically significant but not obviously large enough to guarantee meaningful change in a 30 m sprint time or jump height in absolute terms.
The gap
The abstract gives no absolute effect sizes (seconds off a sprint, centimetres on a jump), no risk-of-bias or heterogeneity data, and no detail on what BFRT was actually compared against (matched-volume conventional training, no training, or a sham cuff), so it's impossible to judge whether these pooled SMDs translate into anything a coach would notice on the field, or whether BFRT beats, matches, or merely supplements normal training. The pressure thresholds (>150 mm Hg vs ≤150 mm Hg) are also given as flat cuff pressures rather than individualised to limb occlusion pressure (LOP), which is how BFR should actually be dosed in practice.
Landmark context
This sits downstream of the foundational BFR literature (Takarada-era work establishing BFR for hypertrophy and strength at low loads) and extends more recent BFR meta-analyses that focused on strength and hypertrophy outcomes into the less-studied territory of explosive power and sprint/COD performance specifically in athletes.
What to do Monday
For athletes in a load-management or rehab phase where heavy plyometric or sprint loading isn't appropriate, BFRT at ≥3 sessions/week for over 6 weeks is a reasonable low-load adjunct, not a replacement for conventional power training in fully loaded athletes, and this review doesn't tell us it's superior to matched-volume traditional training anyway. Cuff pressure should be individualised to limb occlusion pressure (roughly 40-50% LOP for the lower-pressure protocol, 70-80% LOP for the higher-pressure one) rather than applied as a flat mm Hg figure, and every athlete should be screened for contraindications, history of DVT/PE, uncontrolled hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, or pregnancy, before a cuff goes on.
In practice
This is a load-management tool, not a power-training upgrade. In the clinic, use BFRT for athletes who can't yet tolerate high mechanical load, early post-op, a reactive tendinopathy flare, joint irritability, but still need to keep explosive qualities ticking over: lower pressure (roughly 40-50% LOP) if COD or landing control is the priority, higher (70-80% LOP) if raw power output is the target, always set against measured limb occlusion pressure, never off a chart of absolute mmHg. On the S&C floor, treat it as a 2-3x/week supplement alongside your heavy strength and plyometric work, not a substitute, and don't expect a sprint or COD signal inside 6 weeks, so it's a poor fit for a short taper block. Screen everyone for DVT/PE history, uncontrolled hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, or pregnancy before a cuff goes on, and don't extrapolate this to youth athletes or clinical populations outside the competitive-athlete cohort actually studied.
The five papers that matter — every week, free.
We read the whole sports-medicine, rehab & performance literature and appraise the papers worth your time.
Get the free weekly issueRelated appraisals
Read in your language: English · Français · Deutsch · Español · Italiano · Nederlands · Dansk · Svenska