REF-102 · Yin et al., 2025 · Journal of Sport and Health Science, 2025 [SOURCE RESOLVED 2026-07-09] · Paper · PubMed

Combined blood-flow-restricted + interval training: meta-analysis of adaptations

A-fairly strong evidenceMeasured on a mixed groupWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

Yin et al. pooled 24 studies (621 participants) in which interval training done with blood flow restriction (IT+BFR) was tested against the same intervals done without it.

Gains were larger with BFR for VO2max (g = 0.63; I² = 63%), for 30-s Wingate mean power (g = 0.70; I² = 47%), for muscle strength (g = 0.88; I² = 64%), for muscle endurance (g = 0.43; I² = 0%), for maximal aerobic speed (g = 0.74; I² = 0%) and for time to fatigue (g = 1.26; I² = 86%).

The VO2max effect depended on training status, interval intensity and interval mode; cuff width tracked the VO2max change, and 8.23 cm emerged as the smallest width giving a significant improvement.

Key Results

VO2max: g = 0.63 (I² = 63%) vs IT alone.
Wingate 30-s mean power: g = 0.70 (I² = 47%).
Muscle strength: g = 0.88 (I² = 64%); for muscle endurance, g = 0.43 (I² = 0%).
Time to fatigue: g = 1.26 (I² = 86%); maximal aerobic speed: g = 0.74 (I² = 0%).
VO2max subgroups: trained individuals g = 0.76; supra-maximal intensity g = 1.29; moderate intensity g = 1.08; walking mode g = 1.64; running mode g = 0.63.
Meta-regression: cuff width β = 0.14 with VO2max change; minimum cuff width for significant VO2max improvement 8.23 cm.
No significant moderators were found for muscle strength.

Practical Application

Across 24 studies (621 participants), adding blood flow restriction to interval training improved VO2max more than the same intervals alone (g = 0.63, moderate) and muscle strength substantially more (g = 0.88, large), with additional gains in Wingate power, muscle endurance, time to fatigue and maximal aerobic speed.
The VO2max benefit held in trained individuals (g = 0.76) and was largest with supra-maximal or moderate interval intensities and with walking or running modes; a cuff at least 8.23 cm wide was needed for a significant VO2max effect.
Where it fits: a way to add strength and aerobic stimulus to interval sessions when heavy gym loading is not possible (recovery phases, travel, injury); it is a supplement to interval training, not a replacement for it.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: cuff-time, load (% 1RM) and weekly-frequency prescriptions for BFR are not outputs of this meta-analysis — see the BFR consensus REF-566 for application guidance.

Limitations

Small pooled trials with high heterogeneity on several outcomes (I² up to 86%); most modes studied were walking/running/cycling intervals, not sport-specific racing; the abstract reports no adverse-event data.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

regraded 2026-09-27 from A: pooled trials are small (621 participants across 24 studies) and heterogeneity is substantial (I² 47-86% on the main outcomes)

Content correction 2026-09-27
Summary attributed the meta to "Inoue et al." with SMD 0.61 / 0.89 -> Yin et al. 2025, Hedges' g 0.63 (VO2max) and 0.88 (strength), as the Reference status line already stated; all other pooled effects and moderators added from the abstract.
"2×/week BFR optimal", "30% 1RM, 6 min cuff", "+4-6% strength beyond cycling baseline", "alternative to final taper" -> deleted; not from this paper. Cuff-width threshold (8.23 cm) added — the only prescription parameter the meta actually reports.
"Concurrent aerobic cycling" -> interval training (walking, running and other modes); Sport line cycling -> general.
Level A -> A- (small trials, I² 47-86%).