Applied Neuromuscular Physiology Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, Applied Health, and Recreation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
Physique and Performance Enhancement Laboratory, Division of Exercise Science, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 May;32(5):1207-1213. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002414.
Colquhoun, RJ, Gai, CM, Aguilar, D, Bove, D, Dolan, J, Vargas, A, Couvillion, K, Jenkins, NDM, and Campbell, BI. Training volume, not frequency, indicative of maximal strength adaptations to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 32(5): 1207-1213, 2018-To compare the effects of a high versus a moderate training frequency on maximal strength and body composition. Twenty-eight young, healthy resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to either: 3× per week (3×; n = 16) or 6× per week (6×; n = 12). Dependent variables (DVs) assessed at baseline and after the 6-week training intervention included: squat 1 repetition maximum (SQ1RM), bench press 1RM (BP1RM), deadlift 1RM (DL1RM), powerlifting total (PLT), Wilk's coefficient (WC), fat-free mass (FFM), and fat mass. Data for each DV were analyzed using a 2 × 2 between-within factorial repeated-measures analysis of variance. There was a main effect for time (p < 0.001) for SQ1RM (3×: +16.8 kg; 6×: +16.7 kg), BP1RM (3×: +7.8 kg; 6×: +8.8 kg), DL1RM (3×: +19 kg; 6×: +21 kg), PLT (3×: +43.6 kg; 6×: +46.5 kg), WC (3×: +27; 6×: +27.1), and FFM (3×: +1.7 kg; 6×: +2.6 kg). There were no group × time interactions or main effects for group. The primary finding was that 6 weeks of resistance training led to significant increases in maximal strength and FFM. In addition, it seems that increased training frequency does not lead to additional strength improvements when volume and intensity are equated. High-frequency (6× per week) resistance training does not seem to offer additional strength and hypertrophy benefits over lower frequency (3× per week) when volume and intensity are equated. Coaches and practitioners can therefore expect similar increases in strength and lean body mass with both 3 and 6 weekly sessions.
科尔夸恩（RJ）、盖伊（CM）、阿吉拉尔（D）、博韦（D）、多兰（J）、巴尔加斯（A）、库维利翁（K）、詹金斯（NDM）和坎贝尔（BI）。训练量而非训练频率是抗阻训练致最大力量适应性的指标。《力量与调节研究杂志》32（5）：1207-1213，2018-比较高训练频率与中训练频率对最大力量和身体成分的影响。28 名年轻健康的抗阻训练男性被随机分为：每周 3 次（3×；n=16）或每周 6 次（6×；n=12）。在基线和 6 周训练干预后评估的因变量（DV）包括：深蹲 1 次重复最大重量（SQ1RM）、卧推 1 次重复最大重量（BP1RM）、硬拉 1 次重复最大重量（DL1RM）、力量举总成绩（PLT）、威尔克斯系数（WC）、去脂体重（FFM）和体脂量。使用 2×2 组内-组间重复测量方差分析对每个 DV 的数据进行分析。SQ1RM（3×：+16.8 公斤；6×：+16.7 公斤）、BP1RM（3×：+7.8 公斤；6×：+8.8 公斤）、DL1RM（3×：+19 公斤；6×：+21 公斤）、PLT（3×：+43.6 公斤；6×：+46.5 公斤）、WC（3×：+27；6×：+27.1）和 FFM（3×：+1.7 公斤；6×：+2.6 公斤）的时间均有主效应（p<0.001）。没有组间×时间的相互作用或组间的主效应。主要发现是 6 周抗阻训练可显著增加最大力量和 FFM。此外，当容量和强度相同时，增加训练频率似乎不会导致额外的力量提高。当容量和强度相同时，高频（每周 6 次）抗阻训练似乎不会提供比低频（每周 3 次）更多的力量和肥大益处。当容量和强度相同时，教练和从业者可以预期 3 次和 6 次每周训练都会有类似的力量和瘦体重增加。
