Department of Health Science, Lehman College, Bronx, New York.
Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Dec;31(12):3508-3523. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002200.
Schoenfeld, BJ, Grgic, J, Ogborn, D, and Krieger, JW. Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 31(12): 3508-3523, 2017-The purpose of this article was to conduct a systematic review of the current body of literature and a meta-analysis to compare changes in strength and hypertrophy between low- vs. high-load resistance training protocols. Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were conducted for studies that met the following criteria: (a) an experimental trial involving both low-load training [≤60% 1 repetition maximum (1RM)] and high-load training (>60% 1RM); (b) with all sets in the training protocols being performed to momentary muscular failure; (c) at least one method of estimating changes in muscle mass or dynamic, isometric, or isokinetic strength was used; (d) the training protocol lasted for a minimum of 6 weeks; (e) the study involved participants with no known medical conditions or injuries impairing training capacity. A total of 21 studies were ultimately included for analysis. Gains in 1RM strength were significantly greater in favor of high- vs. low-load training, whereas no significant differences were found for isometric strength between conditions. Changes in measures of muscle hypertrophy were similar between conditions. The findings indicate that maximal strength benefits are obtained from the use of heavy loads while muscle hypertrophy can be equally achieved across a spectrum of loading ranges.
舍恩菲尔德、BJ、格里奇、J、奥格本、D 和克里格、JW。低负荷与高负荷抗阻训练的力量和肥大适应性:系统评价和荟萃分析。J 力量与调理研究 31(12):3508-3523,2017-本文的目的是对当前文献进行系统评价和荟萃分析,以比较低负荷与高负荷抗阻训练方案之间的力量和肥大变化。通过 PubMed/MEDLINE、Cochrane 图书馆和 Scopus 进行了检索,以寻找符合以下标准的研究:(a) 一项涉及低负荷训练[≤60% 1 次重复最大重量(1RM)]和高负荷训练(>60% 1RM)的实验试验;(b) 训练方案中的所有组均进行至肌肉即刻疲劳;(c) 使用了至少一种估计肌肉质量或动态、等长或等速力量变化的方法;(d) 训练方案持续至少 6 周;(e) 该研究涉及没有已知的影响训练能力的医学状况或损伤的参与者。最终有 21 项研究被纳入分析。1RM 力量的增加明显更有利于高负荷训练,而等长力量在两种条件下没有显著差异。肌肉肥大测量的变化在两种条件下相似。研究结果表明,最大力量的获益来自于使用大重量,而肌肉肥大可以在一系列负荷范围内同等实现。