(1) Background: Blended learning (BL) models have attracted the attention of university teachers and students worldwide in recent years. However, systematic reviews related to the effectiveness of BL in university physical education are lacking. (2) Purpose: Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of BL in physical education among university students. (3) Methods: Searches were conducted in the following five databases: Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, EBSCOhost (SPORTDiscus), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and 18 articles met the inclusion criteria and were selected. The PEDro scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the selected studies and the quality of this study was fair (range 4–5). (4) Results: All reported sports included basketball (n = 6), badminton (n = 3), dance (n = 3), volleyball (n = 1), yoga (n = 1), aerobics (n = 1), Taiji (n = 1), swimming (n = 1), and tennis (n = 1). Seventeen studies described the effect of BL on students’ motor skills, and the results showed that BL had a greater effect on basic skills, but the improvement was not significant for combination techniques. There were three studies related to physical fitness. Studies have observed significant effects on lung capacity (n = 1), sit and reach (n = 1), pull-ups (n = 1), 1000 m (n = 3), and 800 m (n = 1). However, there was no significant difference in body weight (n = 1) or standing long jump (n = 1). In addition, two articles examined the impact of BL on sitting up, but the findings were the opposite. Six studies reported on exercise attitude and the results demonstrated that BL can significantly improve students’ learning attitude, target attitude, behavioral cognition, and emotional experience. However, the two articles produced different results in behavioral habits. Other results, such as satisfaction and interest in learning, were also popular topics regarding BL and were found to have improved significantly.

Taichi Chuan was previously shown to benefit physical health, but the results were inconsistent. The main reason is that the mechanism is not clear and may be interpreted differently. In this systematic review, we analyzed the data obtained from various randomized controlled trials to identify the effectiveness of Taichi Chuan and the mechanism by which it improves the physical health of adults. We systematically searched various databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, EBSCO Host, Science Direct, CNKI, Wan-Fang, and VPCS, and obtained 1,448 articles for review. The articles were selected following the PICO eligibility criteria. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to interpret the results of the different studies. We included 16 studies in the systematic review. Six of them were of very high quality, ten were of acceptable quality. Overall, the results showed that Taichi Chuan is beneficial to physical fitness, but not all indices supported this statement. Specifically, the effects were significant on Balance (ES = -0.33; P=0.02), BMI (ES = -0.83; P < 0.00001), body fat (ES = -0.45; P < 0.00001), and vital capacity (ES = 23.39; P = 0.01). However, there were no significant effects on systolic blood pressure (ES = 0.07; P = 0.94) and diastolic blood pressure (ES = 0.03; P = 0.97). We found sufficient high-quality evidence to suggest that Taichi Chuan affects balance, BMI, body fat, vital capacity, and flexibility (sit-reach) in adults. The mechanism can be explained by low posture (balance) and moderate intensity of Taichi Chuan. However, no study has explained how to maintain concentration while keeping a dynamic low posture, which made it difficult to validate the finding that Taichi Chuan can reduce sympathetic tension under stress. In this study, we assumed that relaxation methods, which work on the central nervous system that links the body and the mind, might be the key explanation. However, further studies based on scientific, replicable methods need to be performed to confirm our findings.

Introduction:The efficacy of low-intensity blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) training programs in bone metabolism remains unclear compared to low-intensity (LI) training and high-intensity (HI) training. The aim of this review was to quantitatively identify the effects of LI-BFR training on changes in bone formation markers (i.e., bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, BALP), bone resorption (i.e., C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen, CTX) and bone mineral density (BMD) compared with conventional resistance training programmes. Additionally, the effectiveness of walking with and without BFR was assessed.Methods:PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were searched for articles based on eligibility criteria. Review Manager Version 5.4 was used for Meta-analysis. Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was applied to assess the methodological quality of studies.Results:12 articles were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 378 participants. Meta-results showed that compared with LI training, LI-BFR training induced greater increments in BALP (young adults: MD = 6.70,p< 0.001; old adults: MD = 3.94,p= 0.002), slight increments in BMD (young adults: MD = 0.05,p< 0.00001; old adults: MD = 0.01,p< 0.00001), and greater decrements in CTX (young adults: MD = −0.19,p= 0.15; old adults: MD = −0.07,p= 0.003). Compared with HI training, LI-BFR training produced smaller increments in BALP (young adults: MD = −6.87,p= 0.24; old adults: MD = −0.6,p= 0.58), similar increments in BMD (MD = −0.01,p= 0.76) and similar decrements in CTX (young adults: MD = 0,p= 0.96; old adults: MD = −0.08,p= 0.13). Although there were only two studies on walking training intervention, walking training with BFR had a better effect on bone metabolism than training without BFR.Discussion:In conclusion, LI-BFR training induces greater improvements in bone health than LI training, but is less effective than HI training. Therefore, LI-BFR training may be an effective and efficient way to improve bone health for untrained individuals, older adults, or those undergoing musculoskeletal rehabilitation.Clinical Trial Registration:[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42023411837].