Mazzetti Scott A, Wolff Christopher, Collins Brittany, Kolankowski Michael T, Wilkerson Brittany, Overstreet Matthew, Grube Troy
Department of Health and Sport Sciences, Salisbury University, USA.
University of South Carolina, SC, USA.
Int J Exerc Sci. 2011 Oct 15;4(4):273-282. doi: 10.70252/PUST1105. eCollection 2011.
With resistance exercise, greater intensity typically elicits increased energy expenditure, but heavier loads require that the lifter perform more sets of fewer repetitions, which alters the kilograms lifted per set. Thus, the effect of exercise-intensity on energy expenditure has yielded varying results, especially with explosive resistance exercise. This study was designed to examine the effect of exercise-intensity and kilograms/set on energy expenditure during explosive resistance exercise. Ten resistance-trained men (223.6 years; 84±6.4 kg, 180±5.1 cm, and 13±3.8 %fat) performed squat and bench press protocols once/week using different exercise-intensities including 48% (LIGHT-48), 60% (MODERATE-60), and 72% of 1-repetition-maximum (1-RM) (HEAVY-72), plus a no-exercise protocol (CONTROL). To examine the effects of kilograms/set, an additional protocol using 72% of 1-RM was performed (HEAVY-72) with kilograms/set matched with LIGHT-48 and MODERATE-60. LIGHT-48 was 4 sets of 10 repetitions (4×10); MODERATE-60 4×8; HEAVY-72 5×5; and HEAVY-72 4×6.5. Eccentric and concentric repetition speeds, ranges-of-motion, rest-intervals, and total kilograms were identical between protocols. Expired air was collected continuously throughout each protocol using a metabolic cart, [Blood lactate] using a portable analyzer, and bench press peak power were measured. Rates of energy expenditure were significantly greater (p≤0.05) with LIGHT-48 and HEAVY-72 than HEAVY-72 during squat (7.3±0.7; 6.9±0.6 > 6.1±0.7 kcal/min), bench press (4.8±0.3; 4.7±0.3 > 4.0±0.4 kcal/min), and +5min after (3.7±0.1; 3.7±0.2 > 3.3±0.3 kcal/min), but there were no significant differences in total kcal among protocols. Therefore, exercise-intensity may not effect energy expenditure with explosive contractions, but light loads (~50% of 1-RM) may be preferred because of higher rates of energy expenditure, and since heavier loading requires more sets with lower kilograms/set.
进行抗阻训练时,通常强度越大,能量消耗增加越多,但负荷越重,举重者完成的组数就越少,每组重复次数就越多,这就改变了每组举起的重量。因此,运动强度对能量消耗的影响产生了不同的结果,尤其是在爆发性抗阻训练中。本研究旨在探讨运动强度和每组千克数对爆发性抗阻训练期间能量消耗的影响。十名经过抗阻训练的男性(年龄22±3.6岁;体重84±6.4千克,身高180±5.1厘米,体脂率13±3.8%)每周进行一次深蹲和卧推训练,采用不同的运动强度,包括1次重复最大值(1-RM)的48%(轻强度-48)、60%(中等强度-60)和72%(高强度-72),外加一个无运动方案(对照组)。为了研究每组千克数的影响,进行了另一个使用1-RM的72%的方案(高强度-72),每组千克数与轻强度-48和中等强度-60相匹配。轻强度-48为4组,每组10次重复(4×10);中等强度-60为4×8;高强度-72为5×5;高强度-72为4×6.5。各方案之间的离心和向心重复速度、运动范围、休息间隔和总千克数相同。在每个方案期间,使用代谢车连续收集呼出气体,使用便携式分析仪测量血乳酸,测量卧推峰值功率。在深蹲(7.3±0.7;6.9±0.6>6.1±0.7千卡/分钟)、卧推(4.8±0.3;4.7±0.3>4.0±0.4千卡/分钟)以及之后5分钟(3.7±0.1;3.7±0.2>3.3±0.3千卡/分钟)时,轻强度-48和高强度-72的能量消耗率显著高于高强度-72(p≤0.05),但各方案之间的总千卡数没有显著差异。因此,运动强度可能不会影响爆发性收缩时的能量消耗,但轻负荷(约为1-RM的50%)可能更受青睐,因为其能量消耗率更高,而且较重的负荷需要更多的组数且每组千克数更低。