Department of Sport Sciences, University of Beira Interior, UBI, Covilhã, Portugal.
Research Center in Sport Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, CIDESD, Portugal.
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Mar;32(3):632-642. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002237.
Sousa, AC, Marinho, DA, Gil, MH, Izquierdo, M, Rodríguez-Rosell, D, Neiva, HP, and Marques, MC. Concurrent training followed by detraining: does the resistance training intensity matter? J Strength Cond Res 32(3): 632-642, 2018-The aim of this study was to analyze the training and detraining (DT) effects of concurrent aerobic training and resistance training against 3 different external loads on strength and aerobic variables. Thirty-two men were randomly assigned to 4 groups: low-load (LLG, n = 9), moderate-load (MLG, n = 9), high-load (HLG, n = 8), and control group (CG, n = 6). Resistance training consisted of full squat (FS) with a low load (40-55% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]), a moderate load (55-70% 1RM), or a high load (70-85% 1RM) combined with jump and sprint exercises. Aerobic training was performed at 75% of the maximal aerobic speed for 15-20 minutes. The training period lasted for 8-week, followed by 4-week DT. Pretraining, post-training, and post-DT evaluations included 20-m running sprints (0-10 m: T10; 0-20 m: T20), shuttle run test, countermovement vertical jump (CMJ) test, and loading test (1RM) in FS. All the experimental groups showed improvements (p ≤ 0.05) in all the parameters assessed, except the LLG for T10 and the HLG for T20. The LLG, MLG, and HLG showed great changes in 1RM and V[Combining Dot Above]O2max compared with the CG (p ≤ 0.05), whereas the HLG and MLG showed a greater percentage change than the CG in T10 (p < 0.001) and CMJ (p ≤ 0.05). The 4-week DT period resulted in detrimental effects in all variables analyzed for all 3 experimental groups. In conclusion, our results suggest that strength training programs with low, moderate, or high external loads combined with low-intensity aerobic training could be effective for producing significant gains in strength and aerobic capacities. Moreover, the higher loads used increased gains in explosive efforts.
苏萨、马林霍、吉尔、伊齐基尔多、罗德里格斯-罗塞利、内瓦和马克斯。有氧和抗阻训练的同步训练及随后的停训:抗阻训练强度是否重要?《力量与条件研究杂志》32(3):632-642,2018 年——本研究旨在分析同步有氧和抗阻训练对 3 种不同外部负荷的训练和停训(DT)效果,以及对力量和有氧变量的影响。32 名男性被随机分为 4 组:低负荷(LLG,n = 9)、中负荷(MLG,n = 9)、高负荷(HLG,n = 8)和对照组(CG,n = 6)。抗阻训练由深蹲(FS)和跳跃冲刺练习组成,负荷分别为低负荷(40-55% 1 次重复最大重量[1RM])、中负荷(55-70% 1RM)和高负荷(70-85% 1RM)。有氧训练在最大有氧速度的 75%下进行 15-20 分钟。训练期持续 8 周,随后进行 4 周 DT。预训练、训练后和 DT 后评估包括 20 米冲刺跑(0-10 米:T10;0-20 米:T20)、穿梭跑测试、纵跳测试(CMJ)和 FS 中的最大负荷测试(1RM)。所有实验组在所有评估参数上都有提高(p ≤ 0.05),除了 LLG 组的 T10 和 HLG 组的 T20。LLG、MLG 和 HLG 组与 CG 相比,1RM 和最大摄氧量(V[Combining Dot Above]O2max)有很大变化(p ≤ 0.05),而 HLG 和 MLG 组的 T10(p < 0.001)和 CMJ(p ≤ 0.05)的百分比变化大于 CG。4 周的 DT 期导致所有 3 个实验组的所有分析变量都出现了不利影响。总之,我们的结果表明,低、中、高外部负荷与低强度有氧训练相结合的力量训练方案可能会有效提高力量和有氧能力。此外,使用较高的负荷可以增加爆发力的提高。