Mangine Gerald T, Hoffman Jay R, Wang Ran, Gonzalez Adam M, Townsend Jeremy R, Wells Adam J, Jajtner Adam R, Beyer Kyle S, Boone Carleigh H, Miramonti Amelia A, LaMonica Michael B, Fukuda David H, Ratamess Nicholas A, Stout Jeffrey R
Exercise Science and Sport Management, Kennesaw State University, 520 Parliament Garden Way NW, Kennesaw, GA, 30144, Georgia.
Institute of Exercise Physiology and Wellness, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2016 Dec;116(11-12):2367-2374. doi: 10.1007/s00421-016-3488-6. Epub 2016 Oct 15.
To compare the effects of two different resistance training programs, high intensity (INT) and high volume (VOL), on changes in isometric force (FRC), rate of force development (RFD), and barbell velocity during dynamic strength testing.
Twenty-nine resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to either the INT (n = 15, 3-5 RM, 3-min rest interval) or VOL (n = 14, 10-12 RM, 1-min rest interval) training group for 8 weeks. All participants completed a 2-week preparatory phase prior to randomization. Measures of barbell velocity, FRC, and RFD were performed before (PRE) and following (POST) the 8-week training program. Barbell velocity was determined during one-repetition maximum (1RM) testing of the squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises. The isometric mid-thigh pull was used to assess FRC and RFD at specific time bands ranging from 0 to 30, 50, 90, 100, 150, 200, and 250 ms.
Analysis of covariance revealed significant (p < 0.05) group differences in peak FRC, FRC at 30-200 ms, and RFD at 50-90 ms. Significant (p < 0.05) changes in INT but not VOL in peak FRC (INT: 9.2 ± 13.8 %; VOL: -4.3 ± 10.2 %), FRC at 30-200 ms (INT: 12.5-15.8 %; VOL: -1.0 to -4.3 %), and RFD at 50 ms (INT: 78.0 ± 163 %; VOL: -4.1 ± 49.6 %) were observed. A trend (p = 0.052) was observed for RFD at 90 ms (INT: 58.5 ± 115 %; VOL: -3.5 ± 40.1 %). No group differences were observed for the observed changes in barbell velocity.
Results indicate that INT is more advantageous than VOL for improving FRC and RFD, while changes in barbell velocity during dynamic strength testing are similarly improved by both protocols in resistance-trained men.
比较两种不同的阻力训练方案，即高强度（INT）和高容量（VOL）训练，对动态力量测试中静力性力量（FRC）、力量发展速率（RFD）和杠铃速度变化的影响。
29名有阻力训练经验的男性被随机分配到INT组（n = 15，3 - 5次重复最大值，3分钟休息间隔）或VOL组（n = 14，10 - 12次重复最大值，1分钟休息间隔），进行为期8周的训练。所有参与者在随机分组前完成了为期2周的准备阶段。在8周训练计划之前（PRE）和之后（POST）进行杠铃速度、FRC和RFD的测量。在深蹲（SQ）和卧推（BP）练习的一次重复最大值（1RM）测试中测定杠铃速度。使用等长大腿中部拉力测试在0至30、50、90、100、150、200和250毫秒的特定时间段评估FRC和RFD。
协方差分析显示，在峰值FRC、30 - 200毫秒时的FRC以及50 - 90毫秒时的RFD方面存在显著（p < 0.05）的组间差异。观察到INT组在峰值FRC（INT：9.2 ± 13.8%；VOL： - 4.3 ± 10.2%）、30 - 200毫秒时的FRC（INT：12.5 - 15.8%；VOL： - 1.0至 - 4.3%）和50毫秒时的RFD（INT：78.0 ± 163%；VOL： - 4.1 ± 49.6%）有显著（p < 0.05）变化，而VOL组无变化。在90毫秒时的RFD观察到一种趋势（p = 0.052）（INT：58.5 ± 115%；VOL： - 3.5 ± 40.1%）。在观察到的杠铃速度变化方面未发现组间差异。
结果表明，对于改善FRC和RFD，INT比VOL更具优势，而在有阻力训练经验的男性中，两种训练方案在动态力量测试中对杠铃速度变化的改善相似。
