Suppr超能文献

阻力训练期间体积量化方法的比较。

Comparison of methods to quantify volume during resistance exercise.

作者信息

McBride Jeffrey M, McCaulley Grant O, Cormie Prue, Nuzzo James L, Cavill Michael J, Triplett N Travis

机构信息

Department of Health, Neuromuscular Laboratory, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, USA.

出版信息

J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Jan;23(1):106-10. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e31818efdfe.

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to compare 4 different methods of calculating volume when comparing resistance exercise protocols of varying intensities. Ten Appalachian State University students experienced in resistance exercise completed 3 different resistance exercise protocols on different days using a randomized, crossover design, with 1 week of rest between each protocol. The protocols included 1) hypertrophy: 4 sets of 10 repetitions in the squat at 75% of a 1-repetition maximum (1RM) (90-second rest periods); 2) strength: 11 sets of 3 repetitions at 90% 1RM (5-minute rest periods); and 3) power: 8 sets of 6 repetitions of jump squats at 0% 1RM (3-minute rest periods). The volume of resistance exercise completed during each protocol was determined with 4 different methods: 1) volume load (VL) (repetitions [no.] x external load [kg]); 2) maximum dynamic strength volume load (MDSVL) (repetitions [no.] x [body mass--shank mass (kg) + external load (kg)]); 3) time under tension (TUT) (eccentric time +milliseconds] + concentric time +milliseconds]); and 4) total work (TW) (force [N] x displacement [m]). The volumes differed significantly (p , 0.05) between hypertrophy and strength in comparison with the power protocol when VL and MDSVL were used to determine the volume of resistance exercise completed. Furthermore, significant differences in TUT existed between all 3 resistance exercise protocols. The TW calculated was not significantly different between the 3 protocols. These data imply that each method examined results in substantially different values when comparing various resistance exercise protocols involving different levels of intensity.

摘要

本研究的目的是在比较不同强度的抗阻训练方案时,对比4种不同的计算训练量的方法。10名有抗阻训练经验的阿巴拉契亚州立大学学生,采用随机交叉设计,在不同日期完成3种不同的抗阻训练方案,每种方案之间休息1周。这些方案包括:1)增肌:深蹲4组,每组10次重复,强度为1次重复最大值(1RM)的75%(休息90秒);2)力量:11组,每组3次重复,强度为1RM的90%(休息5分钟);3)爆发力:跳蹲8组,每组6次重复,强度为1RM的0%(休息3分钟)。每种训练方案中完成的抗阻训练量通过4种不同方法确定:1)训练量负荷(VL)(重复次数×外部负荷[千克]);2)最大动态力量训练量负荷(MDSVL)(重复次数×[体重-小腿质量(千克)+外部负荷(千克)]);3)张力下时间(TUT)(离心时间[毫秒]+向心时间[毫秒]);4)总功(TW)(力[牛顿]×位移[米])。当使用VL和MDSVL来确定完成的抗阻训练量时,增肌和力量训练方案与爆发力训练方案相比,训练量差异显著(p<0.05)。此外,所有3种抗阻训练方案的TUT存在显著差异。3种训练方案计算出的TW没有显著差异。这些数据表明,在比较涉及不同强度水平的各种抗阻训练方案时

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验