McMahon Gerard E, Morse Christopher I, Burden Adrian, Winwood Keith, Onambélé Gladys L
1Institute for Performance Research, Department of Exercise & Sport Science, Manchester Metropolitan University, Crewe, United Kingdom; and 2Sports Institute Northern Ireland, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, Belfast, Ireland.
J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Jan;28(1):245-55. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318297143a.
The impact of using different resistance training (RT) kinematics, which therefore alters RT mechanics, and their subsequent effect on adaptations remain largely unreported. The aim of this study was to identify the differences to training at a longer (LR) compared with a shorter (SR) range of motion (ROM) and the time course of any changes during detraining. Recreationally active participants in LR (aged 19 ± 2.6 years; n = 8) and SR (aged 19 ± 3.4 years; n = 8) groups undertook 8 weeks of RT and 4 weeks of detraining. Muscle size, architecture, subcutaneous fat, and strength were measured at weeks 0, 8, 10, and 12 (repeated measures). A control group (aged 23 ± 2.4 years; n = 10) was also monitored during this period. Significant (p > 0.05) posttraining differences existed in strength (on average 4 ± 2 vs. 18 ± 2%), distal anatomical cross-sectional area (59 ± 15 vs. 16 ± 10%), fascicle length (23 ± 5 vs. 10 ± 2%), and subcutaneous fat (22 ± 8 vs. 5 ± 2%), with LR exhibiting greater adaptations than SR. Detraining resulted in significant (p > 0.05) deteriorations in all muscle parameters measured in both groups, with the SR group experiencing a more rapid relative loss of postexercise increases in strength than that experienced by the LR group (p > 0.05). Greater morphological and architectural RT adaptations in the LR (owing to higher mechanical stress) result in a more significant increase in strength compared with that of the SR. The practical implications for this body of work follow that LR should be observed in RT where increased muscle strength and size are the objective, because we demonstrate here that ROM should not be compromised for greater external loading.
使用不同的抗阻训练（RT）运动学（从而改变RT力学）及其对适应性的后续影响在很大程度上仍未得到报道。本研究的目的是确定与较短（SR）运动范围（ROM）相比，在较长（LR）ROM下训练的差异以及停训期间任何变化的时间进程。LR组（年龄19±2.6岁；n = 8）和SR组（年龄19±3.4岁；n = 8）的休闲活跃参与者进行了8周的RT训练和4周的停训。在第0、8、10和12周测量肌肉大小、结构、皮下脂肪和力量（重复测量）。在此期间还监测了一个对照组（年龄23±2.4岁；n = 10）。训练后，两组在力量（平均4±2%对18±2%）、远端解剖横截面积（59±15对16±10%）、肌束长度（23±5对10±2%）和皮下脂肪（22±8对5±2%）方面存在显著（p>0.05）差异，LR组的适应性比SR组更大。停训导致两组测量的所有肌肉参数出现显著（p>0.05）下降, SR组力量的运动后增加量的相对损失比LR组更快（p>0.05）。与SR组相比，LR组更大的形态和结构RT适应性（由于更高的机械应力）导致力量增加更显著。这项工作的实际意义在于，在以增加肌肉力量和大小为目标的RT训练中应采用LR，因为我们在此证明不应为了更大的外部负荷而牺牲ROM。
