Next Article in Journal
Cerebral Hemodynamics as a Diagnostic Bridge Between Mild Cognitive Impairment and Late-Life Depression: A Multimodal Approach Using Transcranial Doppler and MRI
Next Article in Special Issue
Influence of Exercise on Oxygen Consumption, Pulmonary Ventilation, and Blood Gas Analyses in Individuals with Chronic Diseases
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancing Cardiovascular Autonomic Regulation in Parkinson’s Disease Through Non-Invasive Interventions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparison of the Effects of Cold-Water Immersion Applied Alone and Combined Therapy on the Recovery of Muscle Fatigue After Exercise: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Life
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/life15081245
life-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

The Impact of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Glucose and Lipid Metabolism in Overweight or Obese Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Hao Chen
1,†,
Peng Liu
2,†,
Yidi Deng
2,
Haibo Cai
2,
Pu Liang
2 and
Xin Jiang
2,*
1
Physical Education Department, Dalian University of Finance and Economics, Dalian 116622, China
2
College of Physical Education, Dalian University, Dalian 116622, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Life 2025, 15(8), 1245; https://doi.org/10.3390/life15081245
Submission received: 25 June 2025 / Revised: 30 July 2025 / Accepted: 3 August 2025 / Published: 6 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Focus on Exercise Physiology and Sports Performance: 2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) offers notable advantages, including simplicity and time efficiency. However, no meta-analysis has yet comprehensively evaluated its effects on glucose and lipid metabolism in overweight or obese adults. This meta-analysis examines the potential efficacy of BFRT in improving glycemic and lipid control in overweight/obese adults. The literature was searched in six databases, with the search period up to 31 March 2025. A total of eight randomized controlled trials involving 267 participants were identified. Data were analyzed using Stata 18.0 and RevMan 5.4 with random effects models. Outcomes included fasting blood glucose (FBG), homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and lipid profiles, and risk of bias and publication bias (Egger’s test) were assessed. BFRT significantly reduced FBG (Hedges’ g = −1.13, 95% CI: −1.65 to −0.62, p < 0.01; I2 = 66.34%) and HOMA-IR (Hedges’ g = −0.98, 95% CI: −1.35 to −0.61, p < 0.01; I2 = 17.33%) compared with the controls. However, no significant changes were observed in lipid profiles. Our analysis demonstrates that BFRT exhibits the favorable effect of improving glucose metabolism in overweight/obese adults; however, current evidence does not support significant advantages of BFRT for lipid metabolism improvement.

1. Introduction

Overweight and obesity have emerged as a global health crisis in the 21st century, posing substantial threats to public health worldwide [1]. In 2021, overweight and obesity were attributable to 3.71 million deaths and 129 million globally, accounting for 5.7% of total mortality and 4.9% of global disease burden [2]. Projections indicate that obesity prevalence will surpass 57.8% in over 70 countries by 2030 [3]. Obesity is now internationally recognized as a complex chronic disease [4]. The rising prevalence of obesity has contributed to an increased burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), particularly diabetes, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), and cancer [5]. The estimated economic costs of obesity-related conditions range from USD 319 million in low-income countries to USD 1.33 trillion in high-income nations [6]. These consequences not only diminish the quality of life and elevate health risks but also represent a critical global public health challenge [7]. CVD remains the leading cause of global mortality [5,8,9]. Individuals with obesity exhibit elevated LDL-C oxidation, dyslipidemia, reduced muscle mass, and other cardiovascular risk factors that collectively promote CVD development [10,11]. Patients with obesity show significant associations between reduced muscle strength and elevated triglycerides, total cholesterol, and glucose levels [12]. The pro-atherogenic lipid profile associated with obesity—characterized by elevated triglycerides (TG), increased low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and reduced high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C)—plays a significant role in CVD pathogenesis [13]. HDL-C serves as both a biomarker of CVD [14] and as ‘good cholesterol’, offering protective effects on overall health, particularly cardiovascular health [15].
The dramatic increase in obesity prevalence is largely driven by four modifiable risk factors: poor dietary habits, physical inactivity, sedentary behavior, and inadequate sleep duration [16]. Regular physical activity confers cardiometabolic benefits via multiple mechanisms: (1) optimizing blood composition and lipid metabolism [17] and (2) enhancing insulin sensitivity and glucose homeostasis [18], which collectively lead to reduced adiposity and lower CVD risk [19]. Exercise is well-established as an effective non-pharmacological intervention for both the treatment and prevention of various chronic diseases [20]. For example, combining aerobic exercise with dietary modifications produces significant cardiometabolic improvements in individuals with obesity [21,22]. Research has shown that high-intensity interval training (HIIT) significantly improves glucose regulation and lipid metabolism [23]. Aerobic exercise significantly enhances lipid profiles in overweight/obese individuals by favorably altering TC, TG, LDL-C, and HDL-C levels, thereby improving lipid metabolism [21,24]. Furthermore, vigorous physical activity (VPA) performed in 10 min bouts, two–three times per week, improves glucose and lipid metabolism while enhancing life expectancy [25].
From a practical standpoint, individuals with overweight/obesity frequently encounter barriers to vigorous exercise participation, including chronic physical inactivity and limited exercise experience [26]. BFRT involves the application of external pressure to proximal limbs via specialized cuffs or inflatable devices during exercise [27]. This technique promotes muscle hypertrophy and strength gains at low-to-moderate intensities through enhanced BFR-mediated anabolic processes [28]. Research has shown that BFR combined with slow-walk training stimulates muscle hypertrophy and strength improvements in young males [29]. When combined with resistance exercise, BFRT promotes muscle hypertrophy, increases strength [30,31,32], and reduces exercise-induced muscle damage [33]. BFRT paired with aerobic exercise significantly increases maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and improves muscular strength [34]. BFRT shows clinically significant rehabilitative effects for knee joint recovery [35]. Furthermore, BFRT confers cardiovascular benefits, including reduced blood pressure [36], improved body composition (e.g., body fat percentage and BMI), and enhanced lipid metabolism (FBG, TC, TG, LDL-C, and HDL-C) [37]. BFRT supports fat reduction and weight management in individuals with overweight/obesity by improving body composition, optimizing lipid metabolism, enhancing physical fitness and muscle performance, and ultimately lowering injury risk [37]. During BFRT interventions, participants typically exhibit reduced mechanical loading, faster recovery [38], and minimal exercise-induced muscle damage [39].
To date, no comprehensive studies have systematically examined the effects of BFRT on glucolipid metabolism in adults with overweight or obesity. Consequently, this study conducts a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether BFRT provides superior improvements in glucolipid metabolic parameters relative to both non-exercise controls and conventional training programs. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effects of BFRT on glucolipid metabolism in overweight or obese adults by comparing BFRT with conventional training and non-exercise controls. Primary outcomes included FBG and HOMA-IR; secondary outcomes covered lipid profiles (TC, TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

This systematic review was conducted in strict accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [40]. The study protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD420251026882).

2.2. Literature Search

The eligible studies were selected independently by two authors (H.C. and P.L.). Disagreements were resolved by a third author (X.J.). A systematic search was performed in the databases: CNKI, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, covering all available records from their inception to 31 March 2025. Relevant search terms were combined using Boolean operators (AND, OR). The detailed search strategies and results are provided in Table S1. Additionally, we manually screened the reference lists of all included studies and meta-analyses to identify potentially eligible studies that might have been missed in the database searches.

2.3. Literature Selection

All identified records retrieved from the database searches were imported into EndNote X9 for automated duplicate removal, followed by manual verification. Two independent reviewers (H.C. and P.L.) performed a blinded screening of titles and abstracts based on predefined eligibility criteria to exclude irrelevant studies. Articles deemed potentially eligible underwent full-text assessment, during which both reviewers independently evaluated each study against the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study design) framework. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through consensus or by consultation with a third author (X.J.) when necessary. To mitigate potential selection bias, no language restrictions were applied; non-English articles were professionally translated prior to evaluation.

2.4. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria were established according to the PICOS framework: (1) Participants: Adults (≥18 years) with overweight or obesity, free from mobility limitations. (2) Intervention: The experimental group underwent BFRT, while control groups received either general training (GT) or blank controls (BCs); minimum intervention duration: 2 weeks. (3) Methodology: BFRT implementation requiring specialized occlusion cuffs/bands applied to proximal upper or lower extremities. (4) Study design: Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with clinical outcomes. (5) Primary metabolic outcomes including TC, TG, HDL-C, LDL-C, FBG, and HOMA-IR.
Exclusion Criteria: (1) Research that does not correspond to the topic; (2) reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses of the literature; (3) studies lacking reported data on our predefined metabolic outcomes; (4) non-overweight or obese adults and use of any medications within 6 months before enrollment, with inconsistent dietary patterns between pre- and post-experimental phases; (5) single-arm experiments and subjects that participated in any activities outside the prescribed intervention protocol.

2.5. Literature Screening and Data Extraction

Two authors (H.C. and P.L.) systematically extracted the following parameters for all outcome measures: (1) pre-intervention data: mean (M), standard deviation (SD), and sample size (n); (2) post-intervention data: mean (M), standard deviation (SD), and sample size (n). In studies where standard errors (SEMs) were reported, the standard deviation (SD) was calculated using the equation SD = SEM × N , where SD represents the standard deviation, SEM denotes the standard error of the mean, and N refers to the sample size. Subsequently, the standard deviation of the mean difference was calculated as follows:
S D diff = S D 2 pre + S D 2 post − 2 r × S D pre × S D post
Here, SDdiff represents the standard deviation of the differences between pre–post-intervention values. SDpre and SDpost stand for the standard deviations of the pre-intervention and post-intervention measures, respectively, while r denotes the correlation coefficient between the pre- and post-intervention measurements. When the correlation was not reported, the within-participant correlation coefficient r was defaulted to 0.5.
Values presented as figures were digitized using graph digitizer software (WebPlotDigitizer 4.8), and the means and SDs were measured manually at the pixel level to the scale provided on the figure [41]. Two authors (H.C. and P.L.) extracted the data using a specific sheet, and any disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third author (X.J.).

2.6. Risk of Bias Assessment for Included Studies

The Cochrane Collaboration’s RCT bias assessment tool was used to evaluate the following: (1) random sequence generation; (2) allocation concealment; (3) the blinding of participants and personnel; (4) the blinding of outcome assessment; (5) incomplete outcome data; (6) selective reporting; (7) other potential bias sources. The assessment of the risk of bias was carried out independently by two authors (H.C. and P.L.), and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

2.7. Certainty of Evidence

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method was employed to assess the quality of evidence [42]. The GRADE assesses the certainty of evidence to fall into the categories of very low, low, moderate, or high.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

Risk bias assessment was performed using RevMan 5.4 software to generate a risk-of-bias graph for the included studies. Meta-analysis and forest plots for outcome measures were conducted using Stata 18 and GraphPad Prism 8 software. All outcome data were continuous variables. Hedges’ g was selected as the effect size measure, with exact computation for bias correction factors and Hedges and Olkin’s method for standard error correction. Effect sizes were interpreted as follows: negligible (<0.2), small (0.2–0.5), medium (0.5–0.8), and large (>0.8). The DerSimonian–Laird random effects model was applied, with a p-value < 0.05 considered statistically significant. If substantial heterogeneity (I2 > 50%) was detected, a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed to assess robustness. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on exercise type. Publication bias was evaluated using Egger’s regression test; a p-value < 0.05 indicated significant publication bias, whereas a p ≥ 0.05 suggested no evident bias.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

A total of 2375 records were retrieved from the databases. After removing 860 duplicate studies and excluding 1449 irrelevant studies based on title/abstract screening, 65 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ultimately, eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final meta-analysis (Figure 1). The baseline characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1.

3.2. Characteristics of Included Studies

This meta-analysis included 267 overweight or obese adults (178 males and 89 females). The study populations comprised male-only (n = 5), female-only (n = 2), and mixed-sex (n = 1) groups. The studies focused on distinct metabolic phenotypes: obesity (n = 2), overweight (n = 4), and normal-weight obesity (n = 2). Six studies investigated resistance training (RT), while two examined aerobic training (AT). Lipid profiles were assessed as follows: TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C in six studies and TC in five studies. Glucose metabolism parameters included FBG in five studies and HOMA-IR in three studies.

3.3. Risk of Bias Assessment Results

Figure 2 presents the risk of bias assessment for the included studies. All included studies were RCTs. None of the studies reported specific methods for allocation concealment. Given the nature of exercise interventions, all participants provided written informed consent and were advised of pertinent safety precautions. Blinding was not feasible, resulting in an ‘unclear risk’ designation for all studies. Participant withdrawal occurred in two studies during the intervention period.

3.4. Meta-Analysis, Certainty of Evidence, and Publication Bias Detection

3.4.1. Glucose Metabolism

FBG and HOMA-IR outcomes are shown in Figure 3.
(1)
Five RCTs were included in the FBG analysis. Compared with GT, BFRT showed significantly greater reductions in FBG (Hedges’ g = −0.77, 95% CI: −1.18 to −0.37; p < 0.01, I2 = 27.09%; GRADE: moderate; Egger’s test: p = 0.5420). Compared with BC, BFR training also demonstrated significant FBG reductions (Hedges’ g = −1.88, 95% CI: −2.47 to −1.29; p < 0.01, I2 = 13.02%; GRADE: moderate; Egger’s test: p = 0.1316).
(2)
Three RCTs were included in the HOMA-IR analysis. Compared with conventional training, BFRT significantly improved HOMA-IR (Hedges’ g = −0.69, 95% CI: −1.13 to −0.25; p < 0.01, I2 = 0%; GRADE: moderate; Egger’s test: p = 0.8005). Compared with BC, BFRT showed greater improvements in HOMA−IR (Hedges’ g = −1.33, 95% CI: −1.81 to −0.85; p < 0.01, I2 = 0.00%; GRADE: moderate; Egger’s test: p = 0.2115).

3.4.2. Lipid Metabolism

Figure 4 shows the analysis of outcome measures for TC, TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C.
(1)
Five RCTs were included in the TC analysis. BFRT demonstrated no significant effects on TC levels compared to GT or BC (Hedges’ g = −0.26, 95% CI: −0.72 to 0.21; p = 0.28, I2 = 56.43%; GRADE: low; Egger’s test: p = 0.2766).
(2)
Six RCTs were included in the TG analysis. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training showed no significant effects on TG levels compared to GT or BC (Hedges’ g = −0.14, 95% CI: −0.42 to 0.14; p = 0.03, I2 = 0.00%; GRADE: moderate; Egger’s test: p = 0.7328).
(3)
Six RCTs examined HDL-C levels. This meta-analysis demonstrated no significant effects of BFRT on HDL-C compared to GT or BC (Hedges’ g = 0.16, 95% CI: −0.27 to 0.59; p = 0.46, I2 = 54.36%; GRADE: low; Egger’s test: p = 0.6516).
(4)
Six RCTs assessed LDL-C levels. This meta-analysis indicated no significant effects of BFRT on LDL-C concentrations compared to GT or no BC (Hedges’ g = −0.11, 95% CI: −0.47 to 0.25; p = 0.55, I2 = 35%; GRADE: moderate; Egger’s test: p = 0.1966).

3.5. Sensitivity Analysis

A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was conducted on the outcomes exhibiting substantial heterogeneity (TC and HDL-C), detailed results are shown in Table 2. Specifically, the leave-one-out analysis results revealed the following estimates: TC (Hedges’ g = 0.02, 95% CI −0.40 to 0.45; p = 0.92, I2 = 0%) and HDL-C (Hedges’ g = −0.14, 95% CI −0.61 to 0.33; p = 0.57, I2 = 29%).

3.6. Subgroup Analysis

Subgroup analyses were performed based on AT and RT to assess their effects on blood glucose levels. Due to the limited data on AT (only one study), its effect on blood glucose was assessed descriptively. The findings showed that BFRT combined with AT significantly improved blood glucose levels [37]. For RT, the meta-analysis demonstrated that BFRT combined with RT significantly reduced FBG levels (Hedges’ g = −0.64, 95% CI: −1.08 to −0.21; p < 0.01, I2 = 17.51%) [43,45,47,49].

4. Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the effects of BFRT on glucose and lipid metabolism in adults. The primary objective of this study was to systematically assess whether BFRT provides superior metabolic benefits compared with either non-exercise controls or conventional training regimens in overweight/obese adults. The meta-analysis demonstrated that BFRT significantly improved FBG and HOMA-IR compared with conventional training or no-intervention controls. However, no statistically significant effects were observed for TG, TC, HDL-C, or LDL-C. Subgroup analyses further revealed that BFRT combined with RT yielded significantly greater improvements in FBG and HOMA-IR than RT alone.

4.1. Effects on Glucose Metabolism

This meta-analysis revealed that BFRT significantly improved markers of glucose metabolism in overweight/obese adults compared with both GT and BC: FBG (Hedges’ g = −1.13, 95% CI −1.65 to −0.62, p = 0.00, I2 = 66.34%); HOMA-IR (Hedges’ g = −0.98, 95% CI −1.35 to −0.61, p < 0.01, I2 = 17.33%). Both FBG and HOMA-IR demonstrated large effect sizes (>0.8). However, the GRADE assessment revealed differing evidence certainty: low certainty for FBG (downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision), indicating limited confidence in the estimate, but moderate certainty for HOMA-IR, suggesting that the findings are likely to reflect the true effect. These results corroborate previous evidence indicating that BFRT enhances FBG and HOMA-IR in overweight/obese individuals [49].
Hyperglycemia not only mediates cellular damage but also disrupts lipid synthesis and degradation, thereby exacerbating insulin resistance and perpetuating a vicious cycle of glucose and lipid metabolism [50]. Precise regulation of blood glucose is critical to maintaining health and preventing chronic diseases [51]. BFR intervention exerts positive regulatory effects on glycemic control [52]. When combined with RT, it significantly improves glycemic control in obese or overweight adults [37,49], which aligns with the findings of the present study. HIIT, a time-efficient exercise modality, has been shown to improve glycemic control after a training period, yielding benefits comparable to moderate-intensity continuous training [53]. However, resistance exercise induces more pronounced reductions in blood glucose concentrations immediately post-exercise and 30 min post-exercise compared with HIIT [51]. Elevated body mass in overweight/obese populations often reduces compliance with aerobic exercise, whereas resistance-based training demonstrates higher acceptability [54]. Both aerobic and resistance exercise improve glycemic control [55], though aerobic exercise-induced energy expenditure may contribute to transient changes in glucose and insulin levels, with both parameters exhibiting a negative correlation [56]. Notably, significant reductions in blood glucose were observed after 45 min of resistance exercise compared with the resting state [57]. Cyclic resistance exercise protocols elevate circulating METRNL concentrations at rest [58], and this increase in serum METRNL levels correlates significantly with reductions in FBG [59]. Subgroup analysis in this study revealed that BFR combined with RT produced superior FBG improvements in obese/overweight adults compared with other interventions. Previous studies report minimal blood glucose alterations following aerobic exercise [60], suggesting its limited efficacy in improving FBG levels. Thus, resistance exercise is recommended as a more effective intervention for glycemic control, consistent with the present subgroup analysis. Low-to-moderate intensity RT appears optimal for improving FBG levels [61].
Existing studies indicate that BFRT effectively improves glucose metabolism by enhancing insulin sensitivity, thereby reducing the risk of CVD events [49]. HOMA-IR is primarily determined by the interaction between FBG and fasting insulin (FINS) concentrations [59]. Combining BFR with RT significantly improves HOMA-IR values compared with conventional training [49,62], which aligns with the findings of this study. Previous research has shown that RT effectively reduces resting insulin levels and enhances insulin sensitivity [63]. Cyclic RT significantly increases resting serum METRNL levels, which correlate with reduced HOMA-IR values [58]. Higher-load RT produces similar effects in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) [64,65], potentially due to upregulated glucose transporter (GLUT) proteins and increased insulin receptor density in muscle cells [66]. However, the reduction in HOMA-IR may be time-dependent, as one study reported no significant changes after 12 weeks of RT [67]. In contrast, this study observed significant improvements, possibly due to longer intervention durations in the included literature. While aerobic exercise enhances HOMA-IR and improves FBG [59], this effect was not observed here, likely because all eligible studies exclusively examined RT, precluding sensitivity analysis for HOMA-IR. The present study confirms that BFRT significantly benefits both FBG and HOMA-IR. Based on current evidence, we recommend combining BFRT with RT to optimize glucose metabolism. The present study revealed that the large effect sizes for FBG (Hedges’ g = −1.13) and HOMA-IR (Hedges’ g = −0.98) exceeded the conventional threshold for clinical significance. These findings suggest that the intervention may effectively reduce fasting blood glucose and insulin resistance, which could have beneficial implications for clinical research.

4.2. Effects on Lipid Metabolism

No statistically significant differences were observed in any lipid parameters (TC, TG, HDL-C, or LDL-C) when comparing BFRT with both BC and GT groups. The meta-analysis revealed a small but statistically non-significant reduction in TC levels (Hedges’ g = −0.26, 95% CI: −0.72 to 0.21; p = 0.28). According to the GRADE framework, the evidence was rated as low certainty, reflecting limited confidence in the effect estimate due to the potential risk of bias. Similarly, the effect on TG levels was negligible and non-significant (Hedges’ g =−0.14, 95% CI: −0.42 to 0.14; p = 0.33), with moderate-certainty evidence suggesting moderately reliable findings. For HDL-C levels, the analysis indicated a trivial, non-significant increase (Hedges’ g = 0.16, 95% CI: −0.27 to 0.59; p = 0.46), supported by low-certainty evidence. Finally, LHedges’ gL-C levels exhibited a small, non-significant reduction (Hedges’ g = −0.11, 95% CI: −0.47 to 0.25; p = 0.55), with moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that these findings likely approximate the true effect. Regular exercise participation beneficially modifies specific components of the lipid profile [64,68]. Exercise reduces visceral adipose tissue stored around abdominal organs, contributing to decreased TG and LDL-C levels [60], thereby improving blood lipid profiles [24]. Furthermore, exercise increases LDL-C particle size and density, reducing their atherogenic potential [69]. The underlying mechanisms for these lipid profile improvements may involve upregulated peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1-alpha (PGC-1α) mRNA expression in muscle and adipose tissue following exercise training [67]. Studies indicate that combined functional training (CFT) significantly improves blood lipid profiles [70]. Notably, the combination of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise with low-to-moderate-load RT produces the most substantial improvements in TC and LDL-C levels [61].
Our findings indicate that BFRT provides no additional benefits for lipid metabolism in overweight or obese adults when compared to blank control or routine training conditions, consistent with previous research [44]. Prior investigations have similarly demonstrated no significant differences in TG levels following aerobic exercise conducted under either hypoxic or normoxic conditions [18]. Comparative analyses of AT, RT, and combined training modalities have likewise revealed no significant effects on blood lipid profiles [55,71]. More substantial modifications to blood lipid profiles may require either higher exercise volumes or greater training intensity [72]. Notably, existing evidence suggests that exercise training volume exerts a more pronounced effect than exercise intensity on blood lipid profile improvements [73].
Aerobic exercise induces only modest modifications in TG and LDL-C levels, whereas combined exercise yields slight improvements in HDL-C [60]. Current evidence suggests that significant reductions in LDL-C levels during aerobic exercise interventions occur exclusively when accompanied by body weight loss [74]. Aerobic exercise enhances insulin sensitivity, thereby improving blood glucose regulation while simultaneously reducing hepatic TG and very-low-density-lipoprotein (VLDL) production, ultimately promoting favorable lipid profile modifications [59]. During physical activity, aerobic exercise preferentially utilizes fat as its primary energy substrate [60]. The mechanistic basis for these lipid profile improvements likely involves enhanced fat oxidation mediated by increased exercise intensity and duration, which reduces overall adiposity and optimizes blood lipid composition [75,76]. Elevated HDL-C may reduce blood glucose levels through multiple pathways, principally via activation of the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) signaling pathway and enhanced pancreatic β-cell insulin secretion, consequently promoting skeletal muscle glucose uptake [77]. Furthermore, dyslipidemia may compromise pancreatic functions and those of other organs by impairing both insulin secretion and peripheral insulin sensitivity [51].
Emerging evidence suggests that RT may demonstrate superior efficacy to AT in modulating blood lipid profiles [66]. RT interventions elicit substantial improvements in muscular strength and endurance, typically ranging from 25% to 100% or more [78]. Notably, RT appears particularly effective in elevating HDL-C levels [70]. The therapeutic benefits of RT extend to enhanced muscular strength, endurance capacity, cardiovascular function, and appetite regulation in obese populations [13]. Crucially, RT-mediated maintenance of lean muscle mass enhances basal metabolic rate and preserves insulin homeostasis independently of weight reduction, thereby attenuating hepatic TG accumulation [79]. The accretion of lean muscle mass following RT assumes critical importance for augmenting insulin sensitivity, optimizing fatty acid metabolism, and elevating resting metabolic rate (RMR) [73]. Clinically meaningful improvements in blood lipid profiles are observed when obese individuals achieve significant increases in lean body mass [80]. While meta-analytic data confirm that RT significantly reduces LDL-C concentrations in adult populations [81,82], our findings align with alternative evidence indicating no significant alteration in LDL-C levels following RT [60]. Training interventions that are shorter than 12 weeks generally fail to modify blood lipid and lipoprotein parameters [83], likely due to insufficient stimulus duration to induce meaningful physiological adaptations [84].

4.3. Future Research Directions

While this study demonstrated that BFRT significantly improved FBG and HOMA-IR in overweight/obese individuals, the metabolic benefits were comparable regardless of whether BFR was combined with aerobic or resistance exercise. The specific effects of BFR on lipid metabolism parameters remain inconclusive and warrant further investigation. Future investigations should employ randomized controlled trials to systematically evaluate the differential effects of various BFR-combined exercise modalities (e.g., resistance vs. AT) on blood lipid metabolism. Additionally, longitudinal studies with larger sample sizes (n ≥ 30 per group) and extended intervention periods (≥15 weeks) would improve the statistical power and clinical relevance of the findings. Such investigations would facilitate the development of optimized BFR exercise prescriptions for mitigating dyslipidemia risk in overweight and obese populations. Additionally, subsequent studies should aim to establish evidence-based training protocols that maximize improvements in glucolipid metabolism for this population.

4.4. Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the small number of eligible studies (n = 8) and limited sample size (N = 267) may reduce statistical power. Second, participant attrition in two trials could affect robustness and generalizability. Methodological limitations included a high risk of performance bias (due to unblinded participants) and a lack of allocation concealment in several studies, potentially impacting validity. The evidence on glycemic outcomes was particularly limited—only one study assessed AT, while others focused on RT. The small number of studies precluded subgroup analyses or assessment of optimal training parameters (e.g., intensity and duration). Although findings support BFR combined with RT for improving FBG and HOMA-IR, conclusions remain tentative due to methodological constraints and limited evidence. Finally, the imputation of r = 0.5 for missing correlations is conventional; we acknowledge that this assumption could influence pooled effect sizes if actual correlations are heterogeneous.

5. Conclusions

Compared with GT and BC, BFRT demonstrates the favorable effect of improving glucose metabolism in overweight or obese adults, and the combination of BFRT with RT may represent an optimal intervention strategy. However, BFRT does not exhibit a potential advantage in improving lipid metabolism. Due to limitations in the quantity and quality of included studies, these findings require further validation through higher-quality research.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/life15081245/s1, Table S1: Search strategy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.L. (Peng Liu) and X.J.; methodology, H.C. (Hao Chen); software, H.C. (Hao Chen); validation, P.L. (Peng Liu), P.L. (Pu Liang) and Y.D.; formal analysis, H.C. (Hao Chen) and P.L. (Peng Liu); investigation, P.L. (Peng Liu) and H.C. (Hao Chen); resources, H.C. (Hao Chen); data curation, P.L. (Peng Liu), H.C. (Hao Chen) and H.C. (Haibo Cai); writing—original draft preparation, H.C. (Hao Chen) and P.L. (Peng Liu); writing—review and editing, X.J. and H.C. (Hao Chen); visualization, H.C. (Haibo Cai); supervision, X.J.; project administration, H.C. (Haibo Cai). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research study received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the article/Supplementary Materials Section.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kanem, N.; Murray, C.J.L.; Horton, R. The Lancet Commission on 21st-Century Global Health Threats. Lancet 2023, 401, 10–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Global burden and strength of evidence for 88 risk factors in 204 countries and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet 2024, 403, 2162–2203. [CrossRef]
  3. Afshin, A.; Forouzanfar, M.H.; Reitsma, M.B.; Sur, P.; Estep, K.; Lee, A.; Marczak, L.; Mokdad, A.H.; Moradi-Lakeh, M.; Naghavi, M.; et al. Health Effects of Overweight and Obesity in 195 Countries over 25 Years. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Breen, C.; O’Connell, J.; Geoghegan, J.; O’Shea, D.; Birney, S.; Tully, L.; Gaynor, K.; O’Kelly, M.; O’Malley, G.; O’Donovan, C.; et al. Obesity in Adults: A 2022 Adapted Clinical Practice Guideline for Ireland. Obes. Facts 2022, 15, 736–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Burden of disease scenarios for 204 countries and territories, 2022–2050: A forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet 2024, 403, 2204–2256. [CrossRef]
  6. Okunogbe, A.; Nugent, R.; Spencer, G.; Powis, J.; Ralston, J.; Wilding, J. Economic impacts of overweight and obesity: Current and future estimates for 161 countries. BMJ Glob. Health 2022, 7, e009773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Haslam, D.W.; James, W.P. Obesity. Lancet 2005, 366, 1197–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Wycherley, T.P.; Brinkworth, G.D.; Noakes, M.; Buckley, J.D.; Clifton, P.M. Effect of caloric restriction with and without exercise training on oxidative stress and endothelial function in obese subjects with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2008, 10, 1062–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lacy, M.; Atzler, D.; Liu, R.; de Winther, M.; Weber, C.; Lutgens, E. Interactions between dyslipidemia and the immune system and their relevance as putative therapeutic targets in atherosclerosis. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 193, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Grundy, S.M. Metabolic syndrome update. Trends Cardiovasc. Med. 2016, 26, 364–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Terada, T.; Reed, J.L.; Vidal-Almela, S.; Mistura, M.; Kamiya, K.; Way, K.L. Sex-specific associations of fat mass and muscle mass with cardiovascular disease risk factors in adults with type 2 diabetes living with overweight and obesity: Secondary analysis of the Look AHEAD trial. Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 2022, 21, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Lawman, H.G.; Troiano, R.P.; Perna, F.M.; Wang, C.Y.; Fryar, C.D.; Ogden, C.L. Associations of Relative Handgrip Strength and Cardiovascular Disease Biomarkers in U.S. Adults, 2011–2012. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2016, 50, 677–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Al-Mhanna, S.; Leão, C.; Ghazali, W.; Mohamed, M.; Batrakoulis, A.; Afolabi, H.; Abubakar, B.; Aldhahi, M.; Gülü, M.; Yagin, F.H.; et al. Impact of Exercise on High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Adults with Overweight and Obesity: A Narrative Review. Ann. Appl. Sport Sci. 2024, 12, e1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yusuf, S.; Hawken, S.; Ounpuu, S.; Dans, T.; Avezum, A.; Lanas, F.; McQueen, M.; Budaj, A.; Pais, P.; Varigos, J.; et al. Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): Case-control study. Lancet 2004, 364, 937–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Jomard, A.; Osto, E. High Density Lipoproteins: Metabolism, Function, and Therapeutic Potential. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2020, 7, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bressan, J.; de Carvalho Vidigal, F.; Hermsdorff, H.H. Social Components of the Obesity Epidemic. Curr. Obes. Rep. 2012, 2, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  17. Wiesner, S.; Haufe, S.; Engeli, S.; Mutschler, H.; Haas, U.; Luft, F.C.; Jordan, J. Influences of normobaric hypoxia training on physical fitness and metabolic risk markers in overweight to obese subjects. Obesity 2010, 18, 116–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Guo, H.; Cheng, L.; Duolikun, D.; Yao, Q. Aerobic Exercise Training Under Normobaric Hypoxic Conditions to Improve Glucose and Lipid Metabolism in Overweight and Obese Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. High Alt. Med. Biol. 2023, 24, 312–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Oppert, J.M.; Bellicha, A.; van Baak, M.A.; Battista, F.; Beaulieu, K.; Blundell, J.E.; Carraça, E.V.; Encantado, J.; Ermolao, A.; Pramono, A.; et al. Exercise training in the management of overweight and obesity in adults: Synthesis of the evidence and recommendations from the European Association for the Study of Obesity Physical Activity Working Group. Obes. Rev. 2021, 22 (Suppl. S4), e13273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Atakan, M.M.; Türkel, İ.; Özerkliğ, B.; Koşar, Ş.N.; Taylor, D.F.; Yan, X.; Bishop, D.J. Small peptides: Could they have a big role in metabolism and the response to exercise? J. Physiol. 2024, 602, 545–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Al-Mhanna, S.B.; Rocha-Rodriguesc, S.; Mohamed, M.; Batrakoulis, A.; Aldhahi, M.I.; Afolabi, H.A.; Yagin, F.H.; Alhussain, M.H.; Gülü, M.; Abubakar, B.D.; et al. Effects of combined aerobic exercise and diet on cardiometabolic health in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2023, 15, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wu, T.; Gao, X.; Chen, M.; van Dam, R.M. Long-term effectiveness of diet-plus-exercise interventions vs. diet-only interventions for weight loss: A meta-analysis. Obes. Rev. 2009, 10, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Feng, J.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, B.; Chen, J.; Wang, W.; Hu, Y.; Yu, J.; Huang, H. Effects of high-intensity intermittent exercise on glucose and lipid metabolism in type 2 diabetes patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Endocrinol. 2024, 15, 1360998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Marandi, S.M.; Abadi, N.G.; Esfarjani, F.; Mojtahedi, H.; Ghasemi, G. Effects of intensity of aerobics on body composition and blood lipid profile in obese/overweight females. Int. J. Prev. Med. 2013, 4, S118–S125. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ahmadi, M.N.; Clare, P.J.; Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Del Pozo Cruz, B.; Lee, I.M.; Stamatakis, E. Vigorous physical activity, incident heart disease, and cancer: How little is enough? Eur. Heart J. 2022, 43, 4801–4814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kim, J.; Yoon, J.H. Does Obesity Affect the Severity of Exercise-Induced Muscle Injury? J. Obes. Metab. Syndr. 2021, 30, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lorenz, D.S.; Bailey, L.; Wilk, K.E.; Mangine, R.E.; Head, P.; Grindstaff, T.L.; Morrison, S. Blood Flow Restriction Training. J. Athl. Train. 2021, 56, 937–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Manini, T.M.; Clark, B.C. Blood flow restricted exercise and skeletal muscle health. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2009, 37, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Abe, T.; Kearns, C.F.; Sato, Y. Muscle size and strength are increased following walk training with restricted venous blood flow from the leg muscle, Kaatsu-walk training. J. Appl. Physiol. 2006, 100, 1460–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Abe, T.; Loenneke, J.P.; Fahs, C.A.; Rossow, L.M.; Thiebaud, R.S.; Bemben, M.G. Exercise intensity and muscle hypertrophy in blood flow-restricted limbs and non-restricted muscles: A brief review. Clin. Physiol. Funct. Imaging 2012, 32, 247–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Suga, T.; Okita, K.; Morita, N.; Yokota, T.; Hirabayashi, K.; Horiuchi, M.; Takada, S.; Takahashi, T.; Omokawa, M.; Kinugawa, S.; et al. Intramuscular metabolism during low-intensity resistance exercise with blood flow restriction. J. Appl. Physiol. 2009, 106, 1119–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Scott, B.R.; Loenneke, J.P.; Slattery, K.M.; Dascombe, B.J. Exercise with blood flow restriction: An updated evidence-based approach for enhanced muscular development. Sports Med. 2015, 45, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Curty, V.M.; Melo, A.B.; Caldas, L.C.; Guimarães-Ferreira, L.; de Sousa, N.F.; Vassallo, P.F.; Vasquez, E.C.; Barauna, V.G. Blood flow restriction attenuates eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage without perceptual and cardiovascular overload. Clin. Physiol. Funct. Imaging 2018, 38, 468–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. de Oliveira, M.F.; Caputo, F.; Corvino, R.B.; Denadai, B.S. Short-term low-intensity blood flow restricted interval training improves both aerobic fitness and muscle strength. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2016, 26, 1017–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ferraz, R.B.; Gualano, B.; Rodrigues, R.; Kurimori, C.O.; Fuller, R.; Lima, F.R.; AL, D.E.S.-P.; Roschel, H. Benefits of Resistance Training with Blood Flow Restriction in Knee Osteoarthritis. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2018, 50, 897–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Picón, M.M.; Chulvi, I.M.; Cortell, J.T.; Tortosa, J.; Alkhadar, Y.; Sanchís, J.; Laurentino, G. Acute Cardiovascular Responses after a Single Bout of Blood Flow Restriction Training. Int. J. Exerc. Sci. 2018, 11, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Chen, Y.; Ma, C.; Wang, J.; Gu, Y.; Gao, Y. Effects of 40% of Maximum Oxygen Uptake Intensity Cycling Combined with Blood Flow Restriction Training on Body Composition and Serum Biomarkers of Chinese College Students with Obesity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 19, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Wernbom, M.; Järrebring, R.; Andreasson, M.A.; Augustsson, J. Acute effects of blood flow restriction on muscle activity and endurance during fatiguing dynamic knee extensions at low load. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2009, 23, 2389–2395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Loenneke, J.P.; Abe, T.; Wilson, J.M.; Thiebaud, R.S.; Fahs, C.A.; Rossow, L.M.; Bemben, M.G. Blood flow restriction: An evidence based progressive model (Review). Acta Physiol. Hung. 2012, 99, 235–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Drevon, D.; Fursa, S.R.; Malcolm, A.L. Intercoder Reliability and Validity of WebPlotDigitizer in Extracting Graphed Data. Behav. Modif. 2017, 41, 323–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Schünemann, H.J.; Higgins, J.P.; Vist, G.E.; Glasziou, P.; Akl, E.A.; Skoetz, N.; Guyatt, G.H. Cochrane GRADEing Methods Group (formerly Applicability and Recommendations Methods Group); Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventio; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 375–402. [Google Scholar]
  43. Chen, W.; Li, J.; Chen, Q.; Shang, N.; Yang, H.; Gao, L. The Effect of Resistance Exercise Combined with Restriction of Blood Flow on the Body Composition and Insulin Sensitivity in Obese Subjects. Chin. J. Sports Med. 2010, 29, 646–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Farzaneh Hesari, A.; Ebrahimi, A.; Zanjani, M.; Mahdavi, S. Effects of Resistance Training with and without Blood Flow Restriction on Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Overweight Females. Med. Lab. J. 2018, 12, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. da Silva, I.M.; Santos, M.A.; Galvão, S.L.; Dorneles, G.P.; Lira, F.S.; Romão, P.R.T.; Peres, A. Blood flow restriction impairs the inflammatory adaptations of strength training in overweight men: A clinical randomized trial. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. Physiol. Appl. Nutr. Metab. 2020, 45, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Razi, O.; Mohammadi, M.; Zamani, N.; Hackney, A.C.; Tourny, C.; Zouita, S.; Laher, I.; Zouhal, H. Walking exercise and lower-body blood flow restriction: Effects on systemic inflammation, lipid profiles and hematological indices in overweight middle-aged males. Res. Sports Med. 2022, 30, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ren, D.; LI, A.; Xia, S.; Zhang, F.; Li, G. Impacts of blood flow restriction of motor muscles on body composition and insulin sensitivity of obese people in low-load resistance training. China Med. Pharm. 2021, 11, 151–154. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kim, N.; Lee, D.; Lee, S. Effects of 5 Week Low-Intensity Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise and Moderate-Intensity Resistance Exercise on Body Composition and Blood Lipids in Normal Weight Obese Women. Exerc. Sci. 2021, 30, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Su, Y.; Wang, F.; Wang, M.; He, S.; Yang, X.; Luan, Z. Effects of blood flow restriction training on muscle fitness and cardiovascular risk of obese college students. Front. Physiol. 2023, 14, 1252052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li, X.; Chen, H. Characteristics of glucolipid metabolism and complications in novel cluster-based diabetes subgroups: A retrospective study. Lipids Health Dis. 2023, 22, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gordon, B.A.; Taylor, C.J.; Church, J.E.; Cousins, S.D. A Comparison of the Gluco-Regulatory Responses to High-Intensity Interval Exercise and Resistance Exercise. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Şahin, E.; Ayaz, T.; Saglam, M. Acute effects of blood flow restricted aerobic exercise in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Medicine 2024, 103, e39031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wormgoor, S.G.; Dalleck, L.C.; Zinn, C.; Harris, N.K. Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training on People Living with Type 2 Diabetes: A Narrative Review. Can. J. Diabetes 2017, 41, 536–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Lee, D.C.; Brellenthin, A.G.; Lanningham-Foster, L.M.; Kohut, M.L.; Li, Y. Aerobic, resistance, or combined exercise training and cardiovascular risk profile in overweight or obese adults: The CardioRACE trial. Eur. Heart J. 2024, 45, 1127–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Sigal, R.J.; Kenny, G.P.; Boulé, N.G.; Wells, G.A.; Prud’homme, D.; Fortier, M.; Reid, R.D.; Tulloch, H.; Coyle, D.; Phillips, P.; et al. Effects of aerobic training, resistance training, or both on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: A randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2007, 147, 357–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. McGuigan, M.R.; Egan, A.D.; Foster, C. Salivary Cortisol Responses and Perceived Exertion during High Intensity and Low Intensity Bouts of Resistance Exercise. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2004, 3, 8–15. [Google Scholar]
  57. Yardley, J.E.; Kenny, G.P.; Perkins, B.A.; Riddell, M.C.; Balaa, N.; Malcolm, J.; Boulay, P.; Khandwala, F.; Sigal, R.J. Resistance versus aerobic exercise: Acute effects on glycemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2013, 36, 537–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Tayebi, S.M.; Golmohammadi, M.; Eslami, R.; Shakiba, N.; Costa, P.B. The Effects of Eight Weeks of Circuit Resistance Training on Serum METRNL Levels and Insulin Resistance in Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes. J. Diabetes Metab. Disord. 2023, 22, 1151–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Al-Mhanna, S.; Syaheedah, W.; Ghazali, W.; Batrakoulis, A.; Alkhamees, N.; Drenowatz, C.; Mohamed, M.; Gülü, M.; Afolabi, H.; Badicu, G. Impact of Various Types of Exercise on Lipid Metabolism in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Concurrent Overweight/Obesity: A Narrative Review. Ann. Appl. Sport Sci. 2024, 12, e1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ostman, C.; Smart, N.A.; Morcos, D.; Duller, A.; Ridley, W.; Jewiss, D. The effect of exercise training on clinical outcomes in patients with the metabolic syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 2017, 16, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhang, H.; Guo, Y.; Hua, G.; Guo, C.; Gong, S.; Li, M.; Yang, Y. Exercise training modalities in prediabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Front. Endocrinol. 2024, 15, 1308959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kambič, T.; Novaković, M.; Tomažin, K.; Strojnik, V.; Jug, B. Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise Improves Muscle Strength and Hemodynamics, but Not Vascular Function in Coronary Artery Disease Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Williams, M.A.; Haskell, W.L.; Ades, P.A.; Amsterdam, E.A.; Bittner, V.; Franklin, B.A.; Gulanick, M.; Laing, S.T.; Stewart, K.J. Resistance exercise in individuals with and without cardiovascular disease: 2007 update: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology and Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism. Circulation 2007, 116, 572–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jorge, M.L.; de Oliveira, V.N.; Resende, N.M.; Paraiso, L.F.; Calixto, A.; Diniz, A.L.; Resende, E.S.; Ropelle, E.R.; Carvalheira, J.B.; Espindola, F.S.; et al. The effects of aerobic, resistance, and combined exercise on metabolic control, inflammatory markers, adipocytokines, and muscle insulin signaling in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metab. Clin. Exp. 2011, 60, 1244–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kadoglou, N.P.; Fotiadis, G.; Kapelouzou, A.; Kostakis, A.; Liapis, C.D.; Vrabas, I.S. The differential anti-inflammatory effects of exercise modalities and their association with early carotid atherosclerosis progression in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabet. Med. A J. Br. Diabet. Assoc. 2013, 30, e41–e50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Cauza, E.; Hanusch-Enserer, U.; Strasser, B.; Ludvik, B.; Metz-Schimmerl, S.; Pacini, G.; Wagner, O.; Georg, P.; Prager, R.; Kostner, K.; et al. The relative benefits of endurance and strength training on the metabolic factors and muscle function of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2005, 86, 1527–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ruschke, K.; Fishbein, L.; Dietrich, A.; Klöting, N.; Tönjes, A.; Oberbach, A.; Fasshauer, M.; Jenkner, J.; Schön, M.R.; Stumvoll, M.; et al. Gene expression of PPARgamma and PGC-1alpha in human omental and subcutaneous adipose tissues is related to insulin resistance markers and mediates beneficial effects of physical training. Eur. J. Endocrinol. 2010, 162, 515–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Durstine, J.L.; Grandjean, P.W.; Davis, P.G.; Ferguson, M.A.; Alderson, N.L.; DuBose, K.D. Blood lipid and lipoprotein adaptations to exercise: A quantitative analysis. Sports Med. 2001, 31, 1033–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Halverstadt, A.; Phares, D.A.; Wilund, K.R.; Goldberg, A.P.; Hagberg, J.M. Endurance exercise training raises high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lowers small low-density lipoprotein and very low-density lipoprotein independent of body fat phenotypes in older men and women. Metab. Clin. Exp. 2007, 56, 444–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Xing, S.; Xie, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, R.; Zeng, D.; Yue, X. Effect of different training modalities on lipid metabolism in patients with type ii diabetes mellitus: A network meta-analysis. Ann. Med. 2024, 56, 2428432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Thomas, D.E.; Elliott, E.J.; Naughton, G.A. Exercise for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2006, 2006, Cd002968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kraus, W.E.; Houmard, J.A.; Duscha, B.D.; Knetzger, K.J.; Wharton, M.B.; McCartney, J.S.; Bales, C.W.; Henes, S.; Samsa, G.P.; Otvos, J.D.; et al. Effects of the amount and intensity of exercise on plasma lipoproteins. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002, 347, 1483–1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Gordon, B.; Chen, S.; Durstine, J.L. The effects of exercise training on the traditional lipid profile and beyond. Curr. Sports Med. Rep. 2014, 13, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kelley, G.A.; Kelley, K.S.; Vu Tran, Z. Aerobic exercise, lipids and lipoproteins in overweight and obese adults: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int. J. Obes. 2005, 29, 881–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hansen, D.; Dendale, P.; Jonkers, R.A.; Beelen, M.; Manders, R.J.; Corluy, L.; Mullens, A.; Berger, J.; Meeusen, R.; van Loon, L.J. Continuous low- to moderate-intensity exercise training is as effective as moderate- to high-intensity exercise training at lowering blood HbA(1c) in obese type 2 diabetes patients. Diabetologia 2009, 52, 1789–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Racil, G.; Ben Ounis, O.; Hammouda, O.; Kallel, A.; Zouhal, H.; Chamari, K.; Amri, M. Effects of high vs. moderate exercise intensity during interval training on lipids and adiponectin levels in obese young females. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2013, 113, 2531–2540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Drew, B.G.; Rye, K.A.; Duffy, S.J.; Barter, P.; Kingwell, B.A. The emerging role of HDL in glucose metabolism. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 2012, 8, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Pollock, M.L.; Franklin, B.A.; Balady, G.J.; Chaitman, B.L.; Fleg, J.L.; Fletcher, B.; Limacher, M.; Piña, I.L.; Stein, R.A.; Williams, M.; et al. AHA Science Advisory. Resistance exercise in individuals with and without cardiovascular disease: Benefits, rationale, safety, and prescription: An advisory from the Committee on Exercise, Rehabilitation, and Prevention, Council on Clinical Cardiology, American Heart Association; Position paper endorsed by the American College of Sports Medicine. Circulation 2000, 101, 828–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Thompson, P.D.; Yurgalevitch, S.M.; Flynn, M.M.; Zmuda, J.M.; Spannaus-Martin, D.; Saritelli, A.; Bausserman, L.; Herbert, P.N. Effect of prolonged exercise training without weight loss on high-density lipoprotein metabolism in overweight men. Metab. Clin. Exp. 1997, 46, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bemben, D.; Bemben, M. Effects of Resistance Exercise and Body Mass Index on Lipoprotein-Lipid Patterns of Postmenopausal Women. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2000, 14, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kelley, G.A.; Kelley, K.S. Impact of progressive resistance training on lipids and lipoproteins in adults: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Prev. Med. 2009, 48, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tambalis, K.; Panagiotakos, D.B.; Kavouras, S.A.; Sidossis, L.S. Responses of blood lipids to aerobic, resistance, and combined aerobic with resistance exercise training: A systematic review of current evidence. Angiology 2009, 60, 614–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Goldberg, A.C.; Hopkins, P.N.; Toth, P.P.; Ballantyne, C.M.; Rader, D.J.; Robinson, J.G.; Daniels, S.R.; Gidding, S.S.; de Ferranti, S.D.; Ito, M.K.; et al. Familial hypercholesterolemia: Screening, diagnosis and management of pediatric and adult patients: Clinical guidance from the National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolemia. J. Clin. Lipidol. 2011, 5, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Durstine, J.L.; Grandjean, P.W.; Cox, C.A.; Thompson, P.D. Lipids, lipoproteins, and exercise. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. 2002, 22, 385–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Life 15 01245 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of study selection.
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of study selection.
Life 15 01245 g001
Life 15 01245 g002
Figure 2. The risk assessment of bias [37,43,44,45,46,47,48,49].
Figure 2. The risk assessment of bias [37,43,44,45,46,47,48,49].
Life 15 01245 g002
Life 15 01245 g003
Figure 3. Analysis of outcome measures for FBG and HOMA-IR [37,43,45,47,49].
Figure 3. Analysis of outcome measures for FBG and HOMA-IR [37,43,45,47,49].
Life 15 01245 g003
Life 15 01245 g004
Figure 4. Analysis of lipid profile outcomes (TC, TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C) [37,44,45,46,48,49].
Figure 4. Analysis of lipid profile outcomes (TC, TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C) [37,44,45,46,48,49].
Life 15 01245 g004
Table 1. Main characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis.
Table 1. Main characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis.
StudyParticipant CharacteristicsBFR DetailsProtocolsOutcome
Age
(M ± SD)/year		BMI
(M ± SD)/kg/m2		M/FNPositionPressureInterventionIntensitySets × Reps or
Span		IntervalFrequencyDuration
(weeks)
1 Chen (2010a) [43]BFR: 21.9 ± 2.07
GT: 21.6 ± 1.71		29.45 ± 1.61
29.57 ± 1.42		13/07PT,
PUL		120
mmHg		LI-RT20%
1 RM		4 × 122 min3 t/wk18FBG, HOMA-IR
1 Chen (2010b) [43]BFR: 21.9 ± 2.07
BC: 21.1 ± 1.66		29.45 ± 1.61
29.83 ± 1.83		13/07
2 Farzaneh Hesari et al. (2018a) [44]18–24BFR: 27.8 ± 3
GT: 26.4 ± 4		0/189PT,
PUL		<70%
AOP		LI-RT30%
1 RM		1 × 30 + 3 × 151–4 min3 t/wk8TG, TC, HDL-C, LDL-C
2 Farzaneh Hesari et al. (2018b) [44]BFR: 27.8 ± 3
BC: 26.7 ± 2		0/199
3 da Silva IM et al. (2020) [45]BFR: 25.52 ± 2.19
GT: 24.46 ± 2.56		28.45 ± 2.35
28.68 ± 1.76		15/0
15/0		15PT,
PUL		20–40
mmHg		LI-RT30%
1 RM		4 × 232 min3 t/wk8TG, TC, HDL-C, LDL-C, FBG
4 Razi O et al. (2022) [46]BFR: 44.77 ± 5.09
GT: 42.77 ± 6.35		27.63 ± 1.2
28.36 ± 1.37		9/0
9/0		9PT,
PUL		140–200 mmHgLI-AT50 m/min5 × 2 min1 min3 t/wk8TG, HDL-C, LDL-C
5 Chen Y et al. (2021) [37]BFR: 20.3 ± 1.07
GT: 20.1 ± 1.08		30.1 ± 0.95
30.3 ± 1.08		18/0
19/0		18PT160–200 mmHgLI-AT40%
VO2max		3 × 15 min1 min2 t/wk12FBG, TC, TG, HDL-C, LDL-C
6 Ren (2021a) [47]BFR: 23.77 ± 2.14
CON: 23.73 ± 2.17		30.88 ± 0.26
30.75 ± 0.23		17/11
16/10		28PT120–220 mmHgLI-RT20–30% 1 RM10 × (3–4)2 min2 t/wk12FBG, HOMA-1 R
6 Ren (2021b) [47]BFR: 23.77 ± 2.14
CON: 23.75 ± 2.16		30.88 ± 0.26
30.89 ± 0.24		17/11
15/11		28PT
7 Kim Namwook et al. (2021a) [48]BFR: 22.3 ± 1.0
GT: 21.5 ± 0.8		met the criteria forormal weight obesity (NWO)0/9
0/10		9PT, PULn/aLI-RT40%1 RM3 × (14–18)n/a2 t/wk5TC, TG, HDL-C, LDL-C
7 Kim Namwook et al. (2021b) [48]BFR: 22.3 ± 1.0
BC: 21.9 ± 0.5		0/9
0/10		9
8 Su Y et al. (2023a) [49]20–24met the criteria forormal weight obesity (NWO)BFR: 9
GT: 9		9PT140–200 mmHgLI-RT30%1 RM4 × (15–30)30–60 s5 t/wk12FBG, HOMA-IR
TC, TG, HDL-C, LDL-C
8 Su Y (2023b) [49]BFR: 9
BC: 8
BFR: blood flow restriction group, BC: blank control group, GT: conventional training group, N: sample size of the BFR, PT: proximal thigh, PUL: proximal upper limb, AOP: arterial occlusion pressure, t: times, wk: week, ±: mean and SD, n/a: not available.
Table 2. Results of the sensitivity analysis.
Table 2. Results of the sensitivity analysis.
OutcomeEliminateNHedges’ g (95% CI)I2p
TCChen (2021) [37]40.02, −0.40 to 0.450%0.92
HDL-CChen (2021) [37]5−0.14, −0.61 to 0.3329%0.57
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, H.; Liu, P.; Deng, Y.; Cai, H.; Liang, P.; Jiang, X. The Impact of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Glucose and Lipid Metabolism in Overweight or Obese Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Life 2025, 15, 1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/life15081245

AMA Style

Chen H, Liu P, Deng Y, Cai H, Liang P, Jiang X. The Impact of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Glucose and Lipid Metabolism in Overweight or Obese Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Life. 2025; 15(8):1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/life15081245

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Hao, Peng Liu, Yidi Deng, Haibo Cai, Pu Liang, and Xin Jiang. 2025. "The Impact of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Glucose and Lipid Metabolism in Overweight or Obese Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Life 15, no. 8: 1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/life15081245

APA Style

Chen, H., Liu, P., Deng, Y., Cai, H., Liang, P., & Jiang, X. (2025). The Impact of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Glucose and Lipid Metabolism in Overweight or Obese Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Life, 15(8), 1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/life15081245

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop