Drinkwater Eric J, Lawton Trent W, McKenna Michael J, Lindsell Rod P, Hunt Patrick H, Pyne David B
School of Human Movement Studies, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia.
J Strength Cond Res. 2007 Aug;21(3):841-7. doi: 10.1519/R-20666.1.
Some research suggests that strength improvements are greater when resistance training continues to the point at which the individual cannot perform additional repetitions (i.e., repetition failure). Performing additional forced repetitions after the point of repetition failure and thus further increasing the set volume is a common resistance training practice. However, whether short-term use of this practice increases the magnitude of strength development with resistance training is unknown and was investigated here. Twelve basketball and 10 volleyball players trained 3 sessions per week for 6 weeks, completing either 4 x 6, 8 x 3, or 12 x 3 (sets x repetitions) of bench press per training session. Compared with the 8 x 3 group, the 4 x 6 protocol involved a longer work interval and the 12 x 3 protocol involved higher training volume, so each group was purposefully designed to elicit a different number of forced repetitions per training session. Subjects were tested on 3- and 6-repetition maximum (RM) bench press (81.5 +/- 9.8 and 75.9 +/- 9.0 kg, respectively, mean +/- SD), and 40-kg Smith Machine bench press throw power (589 +/- 100 W). The 4 x 6 and 12 x 3 groups had more forced repetitions per session (p < 0.01) than did the 8 x 3 group (4.1 +/- 2.6, 3.1 +/- 3.5, and 1.2 +/- 1.8 repetitions, respectively), whereas the 12 x 3 group performed approximately 40% greater work and had 30% greater concentric time. As expected, all groups improved 3RM (4.5 kg, 95% confidence limits, 3.1- 6.0), 6RM (4.7 kg, 3.1-6.3), bench press throw peak power (57 W, 22-92), and mean power (23 W, 4-42) (all p < or = 0.02). There were no significant differences in strength or power gains between groups. In conclusion, when repetition failure was reached, neither additional forced repetitions nor additional set volume further improved the magnitude of strength gains. This finding questions the efficacy of adding additional volume by use of forced repetitions in young athletes with moderate strength training experience.
一些研究表明，当抗阻训练持续到个体无法再进行额外重复动作（即重复次数达到极限）时，力量提升会更大。在重复次数达到极限后进行额外的强迫重复动作，从而进一步增加训练量，是一种常见的抗阻训练方法。然而，短期使用这种方法是否会增加抗阻训练中力量发展的幅度尚不清楚，本研究对此进行了调查。12名篮球运动员和10名排球运动员每周训练3次，共训练6周，每次训练课完成4×6、8×3或12×3（组×重复次数）的卧推训练。与8×3组相比，4×6方案的工作间歇时间更长，12×3方案的训练量更大，因此每个组的设计目的是在每次训练课中引发不同数量的强迫重复动作。对受试者进行了3次和6次最大重复次数（RM）卧推测试（分别为81.5±9.8千克和75.9±9.0千克，平均值±标准差），以及40千克史密斯机卧推投掷功率测试（589±100瓦）。4×6组和12×3组每次训练课的强迫重复次数（p<0.01）比8×3组更多（分别为4.1±2.6次、3.1±3.5次和1.2±1.8次），而12×3组完成的工作量约多40%，向心收缩时间长30%。正如预期的那样，所有组的3RM（4.5千克，95%置信区间，3.1 - 6.0）、6RM（4.7千克，3.1 - 6.3）、卧推投掷峰值功率（57瓦，22 - 92）和平均功率（23瓦，4 - 42）均有所提高（所有p≤0.02）。各组之间在力量或功率增长方面没有显著差异。总之，当达到重复次数极限时，额外的强迫重复动作或额外的训练量都不会进一步提高力量增长的幅度。这一发现对在有适度力量训练经验的年轻运动员中通过强迫重复动作增加训练量的有效性提出了质疑。
