August 21–28, 2026 A relatively quiet week for practice changing evidence, but there were a few worthwhile papers. Nothing here should immediately overhaul how you train or rehab someone. The most useful themes this week were where blood flow restriction fits, how we should think about flexibility and stiffness, and why individual movement strategies still matter. ------ 1. Blood Flow Restriction in Older Adults Efficacy and safety of blood flow restriction exercise training in adults aged 60 years and older BMC Geriatrics, August 27, 2026 Umbrella Review Full article and DOI Findings: Low load BFR produced better strength outcomes than conventional low load training, but heavier traditional resistance training still held a small advantage over BFR. Evidence for hypertrophy was weaker, and the safety literature was not nearly strong enough to claim that BFR is definitively safe across the clinical populations studied. Evidence strength: MODERATE Moderate confidence for the strength findings. Much less confidence around hypertrophy, function, and especially safety. Practical Application: For clinicians, BFR remains a useful tool when meaningful external loading is temporarily limited, particularly in older or postsurgical populations. For coaches and athletes, the important takeaway is that BFR is not some superior replacement for hard resistance training. It is another loading option when circumstances make traditional loading difficult. Think of it as a bridge, not the destination. Verdict: READ IN FULL Probably the most practically useful paper this week, particularly if you use BFR clinically. ------ 2. Flexibility Is More Than “Lengthening Tissue” Mechanisms Influencing Maximum Joint Range of Motion and Stiffness Sports Medicine, August 21, 2026 Narrative Review Full article and DOI Findings: Maximum range of motion and actual tissue stiffness are not the same thing.