Wickwire P Jason, McLester John R, Green J Matt, Crews Thad R
Department of Health, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia, USA.
J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Jan;23(1):72-9. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181854b15.
Acute cardiovascular and perceptual responses to Super Slow resistance training (SS) are not well understood. This study compared blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) between SS and traditional machine (TM) protocols. Participants (n = 20) completed three sessions of elbow flexion (EF) and knee extension (KE). Session 1 consisted of determining 1RM for EF and KE and a familiarization trial for the SS technique. Sessions 2 and 3 were counterbalanced, with subjects completing three sets of SS (10 seconds concentric, 5 seconds eccentric per rep, 40% 1RM) and TM (2 seconds concentric, 4 seconds eccentric per rep, 65% 1RM). Paramount resistance training equipment was used for both exercises. Peak HR was recorded for each set, with recovery HR taken between sets after 3 minutes of rest. Blood pressure was taken after 5 minutes of seated rest, after each set, before sets 2 and 3, and at 2 minutes post set 3. Ratings of perceived exertion for active musculature were obtained three times per set. Although systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) responses were not significantly different between SS and TM for EF or KE, SBP (SS and TM combined) was significantly lower during EF and was significantly higher during KE than resting BP. Diastolic BP (SS and TM combined) was not significantly different from resting BP for EF or KE. Peak HR was significantly greater during TM (vs. SS) for EF and KE. Ratings of perceived exertion were also significantly greater during TM for EF and KE. Even though SBP was greater for SS and TM combined during KE, comparing SS and TM revealed minimal differences in BP. This suggests that, when performing small muscle group exercises with lighter weight at a slow speed, either SS or TM would be appropriate for individuals to whom strength training is not contraindicated.
急性心血管和感知对超慢速阻力训练（SS）的反应尚未得到充分理解。本研究比较了SS训练方案和传统器械（TM）训练方案之间的血压（BP）、心率（HR）和主观用力程度（RPE）。参与者（n = 20）完成了三次肘部屈曲（EF）和膝关节伸展（KE）训练。第1次训练包括确定EF和KE的1次重复最大重量（1RM）以及SS技术的熟悉试验。第2次和第3次训练采用平衡设计，受试者完成三组SS训练（每组重复动作10秒向心收缩、5秒离心收缩，40% 1RM）和TM训练（每组重复动作2秒向心收缩、4秒离心收缩，65% 1RM）。两种训练均使用派拉蒙阻力训练设备。记录每组的最高心率，每组训练后休息3分钟记录恢复心率。在静息坐姿5分钟后、每组训练后、第2组和第3组训练前以及第3组训练后2分钟测量血压。每组训练期间三次获取主动肌肉群的主观用力程度评分。尽管EF或KE训练中SS和TM的收缩压（SBP）和舒张压（DBP）反应无显著差异，但EF训练期间SBP（SS和TM合并）显著低于静息血压，KE训练期间显著高于静息血压。EF或KE训练中舒张压（SS和TM合并）与静息血压无显著差异。EF和KE训练中TM组的最高心率显著高于SS组。EF和KE训练中TM组的主观用力程度评分也显著更高。尽管KE训练期间SS和TM合并的SBP更高，但比较SS和TM发现血压差异极小。这表明，当以较慢速度使用较轻重量进行小肌群训练时，对于无力量训练禁忌的个体，SS或TM训练方案均适用。
