Raeder Christian, Wiewelhove Thimo, Simola Rauno Álvaro De Paula, Kellmann Michael, Meyer Tim, Pfeiffer Mark, Ferrauti Alexander
1Department of Training and Exercise Science, Faculty of Sport Science, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; 2Department of Sport Psychology, Faculty of Sport Science, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; 3School of Human Movement Studies and School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; 4Institute of Sports and Preventive Medicine, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany; and 5Institute of Sport Science, Johannes-Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
J Strength Cond Res. 2016 Dec;30(12):3412-3427. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001427.
Raeder, C, Wiewelhove, T, Simola, RÁDP, Kellmann, M, Meyer, T, Pfeiffer, M, and Ferrauti, A. Assessment of fatigue and recovery in male and female athletes after 6 days of intensified strength training. J Strength Cond Res 30(12): 3412-3427, 2016-This study aimed to analyze changes of neuromuscular, physiological, and perceptual markers for routine assessment of fatigue and recovery in high-resistance strength training. Fourteen male and 9 female athletes participated in a 6-day intensified strength training microcycle (STM) designed to purposefully overreach. Maximal dynamic strength (estimated 1 repetition maximum [1RMest]; criterion measure of fatigue and recovery); maximal voluntary isometric strength (MVIC); countermovement jump (CMJ) height; multiple rebound jump (MRJ) height; jump efficiency (reactive strength index, RSI); muscle contractile properties using tensiomyography including muscle displacement (Dm), delay time (Td), contraction time (Tc), and contraction velocity (V90); serum concentration of creatine kinase (CK); perceived muscle soreness (delayed-onset muscle soreness, DOMS) and perceived recovery (physical performance capability, PPC); and stress (MS) were measured before and after the STM and after 3 days of recovery. After completing the STM, there were significant (p ≤ 0.05) performance decreases in 1RMest (%[INCREMENT] ± 90% confidence limits, ES = effect size; -7.5 ± 3.5, ES = -0.21), MVIC (-8.2 ± 4.9, ES = -0.24), CMJ (-6.4 ± 2.1, ES = -0.34), MRJ (-10.5 ± 3.3, ES = -0.66), and RSI (-11.2 ± 3.8, ES = -0.73), as well as significantly reduced muscle contractile properties (Dm, -14.5 ± 5.3, ES = -0.60; V90, -15.5 ± 4.9, ES = -0.62). After days of recovery, a significant return to baseline values could be observed in 1RMest (4.3 ± 2.8, ES = 0.12), CMJ (5.2 ± 2.2, ES = 0.28), and MRJ (4.9 ± 3.8, ES = 0.32), whereas RSI (-7.9 ± 4.5, ES = -0.50), Dm (-14.7 ± 4.8, ES = -0.61), and V90 (-15.3 ± 4.7, ES = -0.66) remained significantly reduced. The STM also induced significant changes of large practical relevance in CK, DOMS, PPC, and MS before to after training and after the recovery period. The markers Td and Tc remained unaffected throughout the STM. Moreover, the accuracy of selected markers for assessment of fatigue and recovery in relation to 1RMest derived from a contingency table was inadequate. Correlational analyses also revealed no significant relationships between changes in 1RMest and all analyzed markers. In conclusion, mean changes of performance markers and CK, DOMS, PPC, and MS may be attributed to STM-induced fatigue and subsequent recovery. However, given the insufficient accuracy of markers for differentiation between fatigue and recovery, their potential applicability needs to be confirmed at the individual level.
雷德，C，维韦尔霍夫，T，西莫拉，RÁDP，凯尔曼，M，迈耶，T，普费弗，M，以及费劳蒂，A。高强度力量训练6天后男女运动员疲劳与恢复情况的评估。《力量与体能研究杂志》30(12): 3412 - 3427，2016年——本研究旨在分析神经肌肉、生理和感知指标的变化，以便对高阻力力量训练中的疲劳和恢复进行常规评估。14名男性和9名女性运动员参与了一个为期6天的高强度力量训练微周期（STM），该微周期旨在有目的地过度训练。最大动态力量（估计1次重复最大值[1RMest]；疲劳和恢复的标准测量指标）；最大自主等长力量（MVIC）；反向纵跳（CMJ）高度；多次反弹跳（MRJ）高度；跳跃效率（反应力量指数，RSI）；使用张力肌电图测量的肌肉收缩特性，包括肌肉位移（Dm）、延迟时间（Td）、收缩时间（Tc）和收缩速度（V90）；肌酸激酶（CK）的血清浓度；感知到的肌肉酸痛（延迟性肌肉酸痛，DOMS）和感知到的恢复情况（身体运动能力，PPC）；以及压力（MS），在STM前后以及恢复3天后进行测量。完成STM后，1RMest（%[增量]±90%置信区间，ES = 效应大小；-7.5±3.5，ES = -0.21）、MVIC（-8.2±4.9，ES = -0.24）、CMJ（-6.4±2.1，ES = -0.34）、MRJ（-10.5±3.3，ES = -0.66）和RSI（-11.2±3.8，ES = -0.73）的表现显著下降（p≤0.05），肌肉收缩特性也显著降低（Dm，-14.5±5.3，ES = -0.60；V90，-15.5±4.9，ES = -0.62）。恢复几天后，1RMest（4.3±2.8，ES = 0.12）、CMJ（5.2±2.2，ES = 0.28）和MRJ（4.9±3.8，ES = 0.32）可观察到显著恢复到基线值，而RSI（-7.9±4.5，ES = -0.50）、Dm（-14.7±4.8，ES = -0.61）和V90（-15.3±4.7，ES = -0.66）仍显著降低。STM在训练前后以及恢复期后还引起了CK、DOMS、PPC和MS等具有重大实际意义的显著变化。Td和Tc指标在整个STM过程中未受影响。此外，从列联表得出的与1RMest相关的用于评估疲劳和恢复的选定指标的准确性不足。相关性分析还显示1RMest的变化与所有分析指标之间无显著关系。总之，表现指标以及CK、DOMS、PPC和MS的平均变化可能归因于STM引起的疲劳及随后的恢复。然而，鉴于用于区分疲劳和恢复的指标准确性不足，其潜在适用性需要在个体层面得到证实。
