University of Queensland , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
University of Victoria , Victoria, B.C., Canada.
J Sports Sci Med. 2006 Dec 15;5(4):707-13. eCollection 2006.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of three different weight training protocols, that varied in the way training volume was measured, on acute muscular fatigue. Ten resistance-trained males performed all three protocols which involved dynamic constant resistance exercise of the elbow flexors. Protocol A provided a standard for the time the muscle group was under tension (TUT) and volume load (VL), expressed as the product of the total number of repetitions and the load that was lifted. Protocol B involved 40% of the TUT but the same VL compared to protocol A; protocol C was equated with protocol A for TUT but only involved 50% of the VL. Fatigue was assessed by changes in maximum voluntary isometric force and integrated electromyography (iEMG) between the pre- and post-training protocols. The results of the study showed that, when equated for VL, greater TUT produced greater overall muscular fatigue (p ≤ 0.001) as reflected by the reduction in the force generating capability of the muscle. When the protocols were equated for TUT, greater VL (p ≤ 0.01) resulted in greater overall muscular fatigue. All three protocols resulted in significant decreases in iEMG (p ≤ 0.05) but they were not significantly different from each other. It was concluded that, because of the importance of training volume to neuromuscular adaptation, the training volume needs to be clearly described when designing resistance training programs. Key PointsIncrease in either time under tension (TUT) or volume load (VL) increases the acute fatigue response, despite being equated for volume (by another method).A potential discrepancy in training volume may be present with training parameters that fail to control for either TUT or VL.Neural fatigue may be a contributing factor to the development of muscular fatigue but is not influenced by various methods of calculating volume such as TUT or VL.
本研究旨在探讨三种不同的重量训练方案对急性肌肉疲劳的影响，这些方案在测量训练量的方式上有所不同。10 名有经验的男性进行了所有三种方案的训练，这些方案涉及到肘部屈肌的动态恒力运动。方案 A 提供了肌肉群受张力（TUT）和体积负荷（VL）的标准，这两个参数的乘积表示为总重复次数和所举重量的乘积。方案 B 涉及到与方案 A 相同的 TUT，但只有 40%的 VL；方案 C 与方案 A 相比，TUT 相同，但只有 50%的 VL。疲劳通过训练前后方案之间最大自主等长力和整合肌电图（iEMG）的变化来评估。研究结果表明，当以 VL 为标准时，更大的 TUT 会导致更大的整体肌肉疲劳（p≤0.001），这反映了肌肉产生力量的能力下降。当方案以 TUT 为标准时，更大的 VL（p≤0.01）会导致更大的整体肌肉疲劳。所有三种方案都导致 iEMG 显著下降（p≤0.05），但彼此之间没有显著差异。研究结论是，由于训练量对神经肌肉适应的重要性，在设计抗阻训练计划时需要明确描述训练量。关键点：
无论是增加时间张力（TUT）还是增加体积负荷（VL），都会增加急性疲劳反应，尽管通过另一种方法使两者的训练量相等。
对于未能控制 TUT 或 VL 的训练参数，可能存在训练量的潜在差异。
神经疲劳可能是肌肉疲劳发展的一个因素，但不受 TUT 或 VL 等各种计算体积的方法的影响。
