Research Review: Bodyweight, Resistance Bands, and Blood Flow Restriction: Practical Alternatives to Lifting for Military Athletes

By Jackson Mann

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

Minimal-equipment resistance training (MIN), whether performed with or without blood flow restriction (MIN + BFR), effectively improved military‑relevant performance outcomes and body composition in ROTC cadets and midshipmen. Although strength gains (3RM bench press and deadlift) were slightly greater with traditional equipment (TRAD), all training methods produced comparable improvements in power, aerobic capacity, muscle thickness, and fat-free mass. Both MIN and MIN + BFR induced higher perceived exertion and workload than TRAD.

Purpose of the Study

This randomized study aimed to determine whether a 6-week minimal-equipment resistance training program—with and without blood flow restriction—could rival traditional-equipment training in enhancing military sport performance, body composition, and strength markers relevant to the Army Combat Fitness Test. Researchers also examined training workload and explored sex-specific adaptation differences.

Methods

This randomized, controlled study recruited fifty-four ROTC cadets and midshipmen, with an average age of 20.5 ± 2.6 years and a sex distribution of 40.7% female. Participants were randomly assigned into one of three training groups: traditional-equipment resistance training (TRAD), minimal-equipment resistance training (MIN), or minimal-equipment training with blood flow restriction (MIN + BFR). All participants completed four full-body training sessions per week for six weeks, with each session designed to target major movement patterns and muscle groups in a balanced and progressive manner.

The TRAD group used standard gym-based equipment such as barbells, dumbbells, and cable machines. The MIN group trained using only bodyweight exercises, resistance bands, and portable implements designed for field use. The MIN + BFR group followed the same program as the MIN group but added practical BFR techniques—using elastic tourniquet bands applied to the proximal limbs (arms or thighs) at a perceived tightness of 7/10. This method aimed to increase metabolic stress and simulate the benefits of higher loads using lighter resistance.

To assess performance and physiological adaptations, before and after intervention testing was conducted using a battery of standardized measures. These included the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) for functional readiness, vertical jump height for lower-body power, three-repetition maximum (3RM) tests for bench press and deadlift for maximal strength, and VO₂max testing to gauge aerobic capacity. Additionally, body composition assessments were performed using ultrasound and body analysis techniques to measure body fat percentage, fat-free mass, and localized muscle thickness (e.g., quadriceps, biceps).

To understand internal training load and exertion, researchers tracked physiological and perceptual markers during selected training sessions. These included blood lactate concentration, heart rate, rating of perceived exertion (RPE) using the Borg scale, and Training Impulse (TRIMP) scores—a composite measure of cardiovascular training load. These values were used to compare the relative physiological demands of each training protocol.

Statistical analysis was performed using mixed-effects models, which accounted for repeated measures and allowed researchers to examine both within-subject improvements over time and between-group differences.

Key Findings

All groups saw significant improvements over time across most performance measures and body composition metrics, including ACFT performance, vertical jump, aerobic power, fat-free mass, and muscle thickness. However, TRAD participants exhibited significantly greater increases in 3RM deadlift and bench press compared with both MIN and MIN + BFR. MIN and MIN + BFR also showed higher blood lactate, heart rate, perceived exertion, and workload  during training than TRAD. Notably, there were sex-related differences for 3RM deadlift and bench press, indicating that strength gains varied between sexes depending on training type.

Body Composition Comparison

Performance Measures Comparison

Internal Load Metrics Comparison

Interpretation & Significance

Minimal-equipment training—especially when combined with BFR—demonstrates that portable, low-load RT can substantially enhance key performance and body composition outcomes relevant to military populations. Although traditional RT still achieves superior maximal strength gains, MIN and MIN + BFR yield comparable improvements in power, aerobic fitness, and hypertrophy. The elevated exertion and metabolic stress seen in MIN protocols may help drive adaptations typically associated with heavier, traditional training, offering promising utility for field-based programs with limited equipment.

Conclusions

Minimal-equipment RT, with or without BFR, is an effective, high-intensity strategy for enhancing military‑relevant performance and body composition in service members, particularly in environments lacking heavy gym equipment. Traditional equipment remains optimal for maximizing maximal strength, but field-compatible MIN options offer a viable alternative when portability and access are key constraints. Future research should explore longer-term adaptations, physiological mechanisms, and optimized BFR protocols.

Source

1. Cintineo, H. P., Chandler, A. J., Mastrofini, G. F., Lints, B. S., McFadden, B. A., & Arent, S. M. (2024). Effects of minimal-equipment resistance training and blood flow restriction on military-relevant performance outcomes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 38(1), 55–65.