Suppr超能文献

高、低速度抗阻负荷通过容量进行匹配时的运动学和动力学差异:对肥大训练的启示。

Difference in kinematics and kinetics between high- and low-velocity resistance loading equated by volume: implications for hypertrophy training.

机构信息

School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia.

出版信息

J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Jan;26(1):269-75. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31821f48de.

Abstract

Although it is generally accepted that a high load is necessary for muscle hypertrophy, it is possible that a low load with a high velocity results in greater kinematics and kinetics than does a high load with a slow velocity. The purpose of this study was to determine if 2 training loads (35 and 70% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) equated by volume, differed in terms of their session kinematic and kinetic characteristics. Twelve subjects were recruited in this acute randomized within-subject crossover design study. Two bouts of a half-squat exercise were performed 1 week apart, one with high load-low velocity (HLLV = 3 sets of 12 reps at 70% 1RM) and the other with low-load high-velocity (LLHV = 6 sets of 12 reps at 35% 1RM). Time under tension (TUT), average force, peak force (PF), average power (AP), peak power (PP), work (TW), and total impulse (TI) were calculated and compared between loads for the eccentric and concentric phases. For average eccentric and concentric single repetition values, significantly (p < 0.05) greater (∼15-22%) PP outputs were associated with the LLHV loading, whereas significantly greater (∼7-61%) values were associated with the HLLV condition for most other variables of interest. However, in terms of total session kinematics and kinetics, the LLHV protocol resulted in significantly greater (∼16-61%) eccentric and concentric TUT, PF, AP, PP, and TW. The only variable that was significantly greater for the HLLV protocol than for the LLHV protocol was TI (∼20-24%). From these results, it seems that the LLHV protocol may offer an equal if not better training stimulus for muscular adaptation than the HLLV protocol, because of the greater time under tension, power, force, and work output when the total volume of the exercise is equated.

摘要

虽然人们普遍认为高负荷对于肌肉肥大是必要的,但高速度的低负荷可能会产生比低速度的高负荷更大的运动学和动力学效果。本研究的目的是确定两种训练负荷(35%和 70%1 次重复最大重量[1RM])在体积相等的情况下,其在单次训练中的运动学和动力学特征是否存在差异。12 名受试者参与了这项急性随机、个体内交叉设计研究。1 周内进行了两次半蹲运动,一次是高负荷低速度(HLLV=70%1RM 下的 3 组 12 次重复),另一次是低负荷高速度(LLHV=35%1RM 下的 6 组 12 次重复)。在离心和向心阶段,计算并比较了两种负荷下的张力时间(TUT)、平均力、峰值力(PF)、平均功率(AP)、峰值功率(PP)、功(TW)和总冲量(TI)。对于平均离心和向心单次重复值,LLHV 负荷与显著较高(约 15-22%)的 PP 输出相关,而 HLLV 条件下与大多数其他感兴趣变量相关的 PP 输出显著较高(约 7-61%)。然而,就整个训练的运动学和动力学而言,LLHV 方案导致离心和向心 TUT、PF、AP、PP 和 TW 的显著增加(约 16-61%)。HLLV 方案比 LLHV 方案显著更高的唯一变量是 TI(约 20-24%)。从这些结果来看,LLHV 方案似乎为肌肉适应提供了与 HLLV 方案相等甚至更好的训练刺激,因为当总运动量相等时,LLHV 方案的张力时间、功率、力和功输出更大。

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