Fonseca Rodrigo M, Roschel Hamilton, Tricoli Valmor, de Souza Eduardo O, Wilson Jacob M, Laurentino Gilberto C, Aihara André Y, de Souza Leão Alberto R, Ugrinowitsch Carlos
1Department of Sport, Laboratory of Neuromuscular Adaptations to Strength Training, School of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; 2Department of Health Science and Human Performance, University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida; and 3Department of Sport, Delboni Auriemo Diagnostic Imaging Sector: A Division of DASA, São Paulo, Brazil.
J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Nov;28(11):3085-92. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000539.
This study investigated the effects of varying strength exercises and loading scheme on muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and maximum strength after 4 strength training loading schemes: constant intensity and constant exercise (CICE), constant intensity and varied exercise (CIVE), varied intensity and constant exercise (VICE), varied intensity and varied exercise (VIVE). Forty-nine individuals were allocated into 5 groups: CICE, CIVE, VICE, VIVE, and control group (C). Experimental groups underwent twice a week training for 12 weeks. Squat 1 repetition maximum was assessed at baseline and after the training period. Whole quadriceps muscle and its heads CSA were also obtained pretraining and posttraining. The whole quadriceps CSA increased significantly (p ≤ 0.05) in all of the experimental groups from pretest to posttest in both the right and left legs: CICE: 11.6 and 12.0%; CIVE: 11.6 and 12.2%; VICE: 9.5 e 9.3%; and VIVE: 9.9 and 11.6%, respectively. The CIVE and VIVE groups presented hypertrophy in all of the quadriceps muscle heads (p ≤ 0.05), whereas the CICE and VICE groups did not present hypertrophy in the vastus medialis and rectus femoris (RF), and in the RF muscles, respectively (p > 0.05). The CIVE group had greater strength increments than the other training groups (effect size confidence limit of the difference [ESCLdiff] CICE: 1.41-1.56; VICE: 2.13-2.28; VIVE: 0.59-0.75). Our findings suggest: (a) CIVE is more efficient to produce strength gains for physically active individuals; (b) as long as the training intensity reaches an alleged threshold, muscle hypertrophy is similar regardless of the training intensity and exercise variation.
本研究调查了4种力量训练负荷方案(恒定强度与恒定练习(CICE)、恒定强度与变化练习(CIVE)、变化强度与恒定练习(VICE)、变化强度与变化练习(VIVE))下不同强度练习和负荷方案对肌肉横截面积(CSA)和最大力量的影响。49名个体被分为5组:CICE组、CIVE组、VICE组、VIVE组和对照组(C组)。实验组每周进行两次训练,共12周。在基线和训练期结束后评估深蹲1次最大重复量。还在训练前和训练后获取了整个股四头肌及其各头肌的CSA。所有实验组的左右腿从测试前到测试后整个股四头肌CSA均显著增加(p≤0.05):CICE组分别为11.6%和12.0%;CIVE组分别为11.6%和12.2%;VICE组分别为9.5%和9.3%;VIVE组分别为9.9%和11.6%。CIVE组和VIVE组的所有股四头肌头均出现肥大(p≤0.05),而CICE组和VICE组的股内侧肌和股直肌(RF)分别未出现肥大(p>0.05)。CIVE组的力量增加幅度大于其他训练组(差异效应大小置信区间[ESCLdiff]:CICE组为1.41 - 1.56;VICE组为2.13 - 2.28;VIVE组为0.59 - 0.75)。我们的研究结果表明:(a)对于有体育活动的个体,CIVE在增加力量方面更有效;(b)只要训练强度达到假定阈值,无论训练强度和练习变化如何,肌肉肥大情况相似。