Center for Cardiovascular Rehabilitation, Bad Schallerbach, Austria.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Oct;92(10):1527-33. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.04.021. Epub 2011 Aug 27.
To compare the effectiveness of 2 different volumes of resistance training (RT) combined with aerobic training in residential cardiac rehabilitation (CR).
Randomized prospective cohort study.
Center for inpatient CR.
Patients (N=295) with a mean age ± SD of 62.7±11.7 years participated in the study.
Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups (group 1 and group 2) with different volumes of RT; 2 sets × 12 repetitions (REPS) (group 1) and 3 sets × 15 REPS (group 2) per session, 2 times per week; each RT session consisting of 10 different resistance exercises. In addition, patients also completed continuous moderate intensity aerobic training composed of cycle ergometry 6 times per week for 17±4 minutes (mean ± SD) and walking 5 times per week for 45 minutes.
At entry and after 26±4 (mean ± SD) days of CR, blood pressure, heart rate, maximal oxygen consumption, and maximal power determined during cycle ergometry, strength determined via RT, and blood biochemistries were assessed. Data were analyzed via a 2-way (group × time) repeated measures analysis of variance.
Statistical analysis revealed equivalent improvements in exercise capacity, muscular strength, hemodynamics, and blood chemistries regardless of RT volume (comparison-wise type I error rate, α<.01).
Our results show that nearly doubling (3 sets × 15 REPS vs 2 sets × 12 REPS) the volume of RT as part of a residential CR program does not yield further improvement in strength and cardiovascular risk factors.
比较两种不同负荷量的抗阻训练（RT）联合有氧运动在住院心脏康复（CR）中的效果。
随机前瞻性队列研究。
住院 CR 中心。
295 名平均年龄±标准差为 62.7±11.7 岁的患者参加了本研究。
患者随机分为两组（组 1 和组 2），进行不同负荷量的 RT；组 1 为每次 2 组×12 次重复（REPS），组 2 为每次 3 组×15 REPS，每周 2 次；每次 RT 包括 10 种不同的抗阻运动。此外，患者还完成了连续的中等强度有氧运动，每周 6 次进行自行车测功计运动，每次 17±4 分钟（平均值±标准差），每周 5 次进行步行运动，每次 45 分钟。
在 CR 开始时和 26±4（平均值±标准差）天后，评估血压、心率、最大摄氧量和自行车测功计运动时的最大功率、RT 确定的肌肉力量以及血液生化指标。通过 2 因素（组×时间）重复测量方差分析进行数据分析。
无论 RT 负荷量如何（组间比较的Ⅰ型错误率，α<.01），统计分析均显示运动能力、肌肉力量、血液动力学和血液生化指标的改善效果相当。
我们的结果表明，在住院 CR 方案中，将 RT 负荷量增加近一倍（3 组×15 REPS 与 2 组×12 REPS）不会进一步改善力量和心血管危险因素。
