Department of Health and Human Performance, University of St. Thomas, 2115 Summit Avenue, St. Paul, MN, 55105-1096, USA.
School of Health Studies, University of Memphis, 3720 Alumni Ave, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017 Sep;117(9):1891-1896. doi: 10.1007/s00421-017-3661-6. Epub 2017 Jul 12.
Rest-pause (4-s unloaded rest between repetitions) training effects on one repetition maximum (1 RM), lifting volume, and neural activation via electromyography (EMG) are currently vague in the literature and can benefit strength and conditioning professionals for resistance training programme design. Therefore, this study compared 1 RM, neural activation via (EMG), and volume differences between rest-pause vs. traditional resistance training.
Trained males (N = 20) were randomly assigned to either a rest-pause or a traditional training group. Pre- and post-1 RM testing was recorded. Training sessions were completed twice a week for 4 weeks and consisted of four sets of bench press to volitional fatigue at 80% of pre-test 1 RM with a 2-min rest between sets. Total volume completed was recorded on each training day. Neural activation of the pectoralis major was measured on the first and last training days.
A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA indicated both groups significantly increased their 1 RMs following the 4-week training protocol (p < .05). However, no significant differences were found in 1 RM and neural activation between the two groups (p > .05). An independent samples t test indicated that total volume lifted was significantly higher for the rest-pause group (56,778 vs. 38,315 lbs; p < .05) throughout the protocol and independently during weeks 2, 3, and 4.
While strength and neural activation changes did not differ between groups, both increased 1 RMs and the rest-pause group achieved greater increases in volume than the traditional group. If volume is the focus of training, the rest-pause method should be utilized.
休息-暂停（重复之间 4 秒无负载休息）训练对 1 次最大重复次数（1RM）、举重量和肌电图（EMG）神经激活的影响在文献中目前还不清楚，这可以为力量和体能专业人员提供阻力训练计划设计的帮助。因此，本研究比较了休息-暂停与传统阻力训练之间的 1RM、通过（EMG）神经激活和量的差异。
训练有素的男性（N=20）被随机分配到休息-暂停或传统训练组。记录了 1RM 测试的前后结果。训练课程每周进行两次，持续 4 周，包括 4 组卧推，直到达到 80%的前测 1RM 为止，每组之间休息 2 分钟。记录了每个训练日的总完成量。在第 1 天和最后 1 天的训练日测量胸大肌的神经激活。
双向重复测量方差分析表明，两组在 4 周的训练方案后都显著提高了他们的 1RM（p<0.05）。然而，两组之间在 1RM 和神经激活方面没有发现显著差异（p>0.05）。独立样本 t 检验表明，整个方案中休息-暂停组的总举重量显著更高（56778 磅对 38315 磅；p<0.05），并且在第 2、3 和 4 周独立时也是如此。
虽然组间的力量和神经激活变化没有差异，但两组都提高了 1RM，并且休息-暂停组的量增加幅度大于传统组。如果量是训练的重点，那么应该使用休息-暂停方法。
