Faculty of Physical Education of Santos, Metropolitan University of Santos, Santos, Brazil.
J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Jul;24(7):1843-50. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181ddae4a.
Most resistance training programs use constant rest period lengths between sets and exercises, but some programs use decreasing rest period lengths as training progresses. The aim of this study was to compare the effect on strength and hypertrophy of 8 weeks of resistance training using constant rest intervals (CIs) and decreasing rest intervals (DIs) between sets and exercises. Twenty young men recreationally trained in strength training were randomly assigned to either a CI or DI training group. During the first 2 weeks of training, 3 sets of 10-12 repetition maximum (RM) with 2-minute rest intervals between sets and exercises were performed by both groups. During the next 6 weeks of training, the CI group trained using 2 minutes between sets and exercises (4 sets of 8-10RM), and the DI group trained with DIs (2 minutes decreasing to 30 seconds) as the 6 weeks of training progressed (4 sets of 8-10RM). Total training volume of the bench press and squat were significantly lower for the DI compared to the CI group (bench press 9.4%, squat 13.9%) and weekly training volume of these same exercises was lower in the DI group from weeks 6 to 8 of training. Strength (1RM) in the bench press and squat, knee extensor and flexor isokinetic measures of peak torque, and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) using magnetic resonance imaging were assessed pretraining and posttraining. No significant differences (p < or = 0.05) were shown between the CI and DI training protocols for CSA (arm 13.8 vs. 14.5%, thigh 16.6 vs. 16.3%), 1RM (bench press 28 vs. 37%, squat 34 vs. 34%), and isokinetic peak torque. In conclusion, the results indicate that a training protocol with DI is just as effective as a CI protocol over short training periods (6 weeks) for increasing maximal strength and muscle CSA; thus, either type of program can be used over a short training period to cause strength and hypertrophy.
大多数抗阻训练计划在组间和组内使用固定的休息时间,但有些计划则随着训练的进展逐渐减少休息时间。本研究旨在比较使用固定间歇(CI)和组间和组内逐渐减少间歇(DI)进行 8 周抗阻训练对力量和肌肉肥大的影响。20 名有规律进行力量训练的年轻男性被随机分配到 CI 或 DI 训练组。在训练的前 2 周,两组均进行 3 组 10-12 次重复最大重量(RM)的训练,组间和组内休息时间为 2 分钟。在接下来的 6 周训练中,CI 组的训练间隔为 2 分钟(4 组 8-10RM),DI 组的训练间隔逐渐减少(6 周内从 2 分钟减少到 30 秒)(4 组 8-10RM)。与 CI 组相比,DI 组的卧推和深蹲的总训练量明显较低(卧推减少 9.4%,深蹲减少 13.9%),并且从第 6 周到第 8 周,DI 组的这些相同运动的每周训练量也较低。训练前后评估了卧推和深蹲、膝关节伸肌和屈肌等速峰值扭矩以及磁共振成像(MRI)测量的肌肉横截面积(CSA)。在 CSA(手臂 13.8%对 14.5%,大腿 16.6%对 16.3%)、1RM(卧推 28%对 37%,深蹲 34%对 34%)和等速峰值扭矩方面,CI 和 DI 训练方案之间没有显著差异(p<0.05)。结论:在较短的训练周期(6 周)内,与 CI 方案相比,DI 方案在增加最大力量和肌肉 CSA 方面同样有效;因此,在较短的训练周期内,可以使用任何一种方案来引起力量和肥大。