School of Human Movement and Sport Sciences, University of Ballarat, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia.
J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Jul;24(7):1782-9. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181dc3a53.
The objective of this study was to investigate the acute effects of performing traditional set (TS) vs. complex set (CS) agonist-antagonist training over 3 consecutive sets, on bench press throw (BPT) throw height (TH), peak velocity (PV), peak power (PP), bench pull volume load (VL), and electromyographic (EMG) activity. Eighteen trained men performed 2 testing protocols: TS comprising 3 sets of Bpull followed by 3 sets of BPT performed in approximately 20 minutes or CS comprising 3 sets of both Bpull and BPT performed in an alternating manner in approximately 10 minutes. Throw height, PV, PP, and EMG activity were not different within, or between, the 2 conditions. Bench pull VL decreased significantly from set 1 to sets 2 and 3, under both conditions. Decreases from set 1 to set 2 were 14.55 +/- 26.11 and 9.07 +/- 13.89% and from set 1 to set 3 were 16.87 +/- 29.90 and 14.17 +/- 18.37% under CS and TS, respectively. There was no difference in VL per set, or session, between the conditions. Although there was no augmentation of the power measures, CS was determined to have approximately twice the efficiency (ouput/time) as compared to TS. Efficiency calculations for VL, TH, PV, and PP are 103.47 kg.min, 26.25 cm.min, 1.98 m.s.min, 890.39 W.min under CS and 54.71 kg.min, 13.02 cm.min, 0.99 m.s.min, 459.28 W.min under TS. Comparison of EMG activity between the protocols suggests the level of neuromuscular fatigue did not differ under the 2 conditions. Complex set training would appear to be an effective method of exercise with respect to efficiency and the maintenance of TH, PV, PP, and VL.
本研究旨在探讨连续 3 组完成传统组（TS）与复杂组（CS）抗阻-助力训练对卧推挺举高度（TH）、峰值速度（PV）、峰值功率（PP）、卧推拉力总负荷（VL）和肌电图（EMG）活动的急性影响。18 名训练有素的男性进行了 2 项测试方案：TS 包括 3 组 B 拉 followed 随后进行 3 组 BPT，大约需要 20 分钟；CS 包括 3 组 B 拉和 BPT 交替进行，大约需要 10 分钟。在两种条件下，TH、PV、PP 和 EMG 活动在组内和组间均无差异。在两种条件下，从第 1 组到第 2 组和第 3 组，VL 均显著下降。从第 1 组到第 2 组的下降分别为 14.55%±26.11%和 9.07%±13.89%，从第 1 组到第 3 组的下降分别为 16.87%±29.90%和 14.17%±18.37%。在 CS 和 TS 下，每组或每节的 VL 无差异。尽管力量指标没有增加，但 CS 的效率（输出/时间）约为 TS 的两倍。VL、TH、PV 和 PP 的效率计算值分别为 CS 下的 103.47 kg.min、26.25 cm.min、1.98 m.s.min 和 890.39 W.min，以及 TS 下的 54.71 kg.min、13.02 cm.min、0.99 m.s.min 和 459.28 W.min。对两种方案的 EMG 活动进行比较表明，两种方案下的神经肌肉疲劳程度没有差异。与 TS 相比，CS 似乎是一种有效的运动方式，效率高，TH、PV、PP 和 VL 维持良好。
