Although physical activity (PA) has a profound impact on health, many college and university students are still physically inactive. There is some evidence to suggest that social support (SS) could impact the PA levels of students, but the internal relationship and specific effects are not very clear. The purpose of this review was to determine the strength of the relationship between SS and PA and examine whether any potential associations differed in terms of age, gender, and region among college and university students. Studies were identified using the following electronic databases: PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Sociological Abstracts. Moderator analyses investigating the effects of students’ age, gender, and region (nation) were performed. This review included 19 articles. The results showed total SS was significantly associated with PA ( r = 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.22, 0.37], p < .001). With respect to different types of support, friend support was more strongly associated with PA than family support. Gender factors had a significant moderating effect on the correlation between SS and PA (Q _M = 17.433, p < .001). Separate analyses examining the moderating effects of gender (percentage of females) found that the association between SS and PA was stronger with the increase in female percentage. In conclusion, SS is an important factor associated with PA levels and should foster SS within intervention programs according to types of SS and gender differences to increase PA levels among college and university students.

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare changes in explosive power between blood flow restriction training and traditional resistance training protocols. Searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and OVID Medline were conducted for studies. Inclusion criteria were: (a) healthy people; (b) randomized controlled or controlled trials; (c) outcome measures of explosive performance (peak power, rate of force development, jump performance, sprint performance, etc.); (d) involving a comparison between blood flow restriction training and traditional resistance training. Quality assessment was conducted using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. A total of 12 studies (262 subjects) were finally included for analysis. The PEDro scale score had a median of 5 of 10 points (range: 3–6 points). Significant small to moderate improvements were observed in blood flow restriction training [jump: standard mean difference (SMD) of 0.36 (95% CI: 0.02; 0.69); sprint: SMD of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.00; 1.07); power: SMD of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.17; 1.27)] when compared to traditional resistance training. The findings indicate that blood flow restriction training is more effective in improving explosive power of lower limbs compared to traditional resistance training in healthy people. In addition, blood flow restriction with a wide cuff ( 10 cm) during training improved explosive power better than with a narrow cuff or during the rest interval. Blood flow restriction training is very suitable for athletes in short competitive seasons and those who are not able to tolerate high loads (i.e., rehabilitators and the elderly).

To compare the muscular characteristics of “hit” and “miss” actions in roundhouse kicks among taekwondo athletes, and explore the similarities, differences, and implications for training, motion tests were conducted on ten taekwondo athletes using Noraxon32 and VICON. The results showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) in integrated electromyography (EMG) during the initiation and kicking phases between “miss” and “hit” actions. However, during the retraction phase, significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in the left rectus femoris, left peroneus longus, right biceps femoris, right semitendinosus, and right tibialis anterior muscles. The tibialis anterior muscle of the swinging leg was activated first in the “hit” action, while the biceps femoris was activated first in the “miss” action. The supporting-side rectus femoris was activated first in the “hit” action, whereas it was the biceps femoris in the “miss” action. In both techniques, the gluteus maximus was the last muscle to be activated. The “miss” action had a longer cycle, and the duration of muscle work was longer than in the “hit” action. During the retraction phase of the front leg roundhouse kick, the muscles worked more than during the kicking phase, with the erector spinae and tibialis anterior being the core force-producing muscles in both techniques, characterized by high EMG values and long activation times. In the “miss” action, the thigh muscles drove the calf muscles, while the “hit” action exhibited the opposite pattern. “Hit” actions had a faster cycle compared to “miss,” with greater force generation in “miss.” The hip flexors and knee extensors of the kicking leg were the core force-producing muscles during the kicking process, determining the effectiveness and completion of the action.

This meta-analysis aimed to examine the effects of plyometric training on physical fitness attributes in handball players. A systematic literature search across PubMed, SCOPUS, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science identified 20 studies with 563 players. Plyometric training showed significant medium-to-large effects on various attributes: countermovement jump with arms (ES = 1.84), countermovement jump (ES = 1.33), squat jump (ES = 1.17), and horizontal jump (ES = 0.83), ≤ 10-m linear sprint time (ES = -1.12), > 10-m linear sprint time (ES = -1.46), repeated sprint ability with change-of-direction time (ES = -1.53), agility (ES = -1.60), maximal strength (ES = 0.52), and force–velocity (muscle power) (ES = 1.13). No significant impact on balance was found. Subgroup analysis indicated more pronounced agility improvements in players ≤ 66.6 kg compared to > 66.6 kg (ES = -1.93 vs. -0.23, p = 0.014). Additionally, greater improvements were observed in linear sprint and repeat sprint ability when comparing training durations of > 8 weeks with those ≤ 8 weeks (ES = -2.30 to -2.89 vs. ES = -0.92 to -0.97). In conclusion, plyometric training effectively improves various physical fitness attributes, including jump performance, linear sprint ability, maximal strength, muscle power and agility.

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].