Int J Sports Med 2025; 46(03): 172-181
DOI: 10.1055/a-2464-3148
Physiology & Biochemistry

Comparison of Different Methods on Post-Activation Performance Enhancement: A Meta-Analysis

Chunyu Zhao
1   School of Sport and Physical Education, North University of China, Taiyuan, China (Ringgold ID: RIN66291)
,
Congying Li
2   College of Physical Education and Sports, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China (Ringgold ID: RIN47836)
,
Ronghai Su
2   College of Physical Education and Sports, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China (Ringgold ID: RIN47836)
,
Lin Chen
3   Department of Physical Education, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Ringgold ID: RIN66390)
,
Wei Wei
2   College of Physical Education and Sports, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China (Ringgold ID: RIN47836)
,
Meng Meng
4   Department of Physical Education, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China (Ringgold ID: RIN12466)
,
Chen Chen
4   Department of Physical Education, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China (Ringgold ID: RIN12466)
› Author Affiliations

Supported by: The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities Grant No. 2072021150
Supported by: Xiamen University Curriculum Teaching Research Program Grant No. JG20230807
Preview

Abstract

This meta-analysis was aimed to compare the effects of two methods on post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE). We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from inception to December 2023. Two authors independently selected the included studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty evidence. The primary meta-analysis compared the effects of blood flow restriction combined with resistance training (BFR-RT) and high-load resistance training (HL-RT) on the indicator jump height (JH) and power output (PO) of PAPE. The secondary meta-analyses compared within-group differences by gender and between-group differences between the optimal combined protocol of arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) combined with resistance load and the HL-RT protocol. This meta-analysis shows that both BFR-RT and HL-RT significantly improved JH (standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.20, 0.59]) (SMD=0.34, 95% CI [0.19, 0.48]) and PO (SMD=0.42, 95% CI [0.21, 0.62]) (SMD=0.37, 95%CI [0.19, 0.54]), and there was no significant difference between them. However, subgroup analysis revealed that in terms of gender, BFR-RT was more beneficial for PAPE in females, and in terms of combined protocol, BFR-RT with 50% AOP+30% 1 repetition maximum had the greatest effect compared to HL-RT.BFR-RT can serve as an effective alternative to HL-RT for inducing PAPE.

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 19 May 2024

Accepted after revision: 28 October 2024

Article published online:
18 January 2025

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany