Exercise Biology Research Group (BioEx), Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro (UFTM), Uberaba, Brazil.
Department of Sport Sciences, Health Science Institute, Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro (UFTM), Uberaba, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Jul;33 Suppl 1:S130-S139. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002559.
Gomes, GK, Franco, CM, Nunes, PRP, and Orsatti, FL. High-frequency resistance training is not more effective than low-frequency resistance training in increasing muscle mass and strength in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 33(7S): S130-S139, 2019-We studied the effects of 2 different weekly frequency resistance training (RT) protocols over 8 weeks on muscle strength and muscle hypertrophy in well-trained men. Twenty-three subjects (age: 26.2 ± 4.2 years; RT experience: 6.9 ± 3.1 years) were randomly allocated into the 2 groups: low-frequency resistance training (LFRT, n = 12) or high-frequency resistance training (HFRT, n = 11). The LFRT performed a split-body routine, training each specific muscle group once a week. The HFRT performed a total-body routine, training all muscle groups every session. Both groups performed the same number of sets (10-15 sets) and exercises (1-2 exercise) per week, 8-12 repetitions maximum (70-80% of 1 repetition maximum [1RM]), 5 times per week. Muscle strength (bench press and squat 1RM) and lean tissue mass (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) were assessed before and at the end of the study. Results showed that both groups improved (p < 0.001) muscle strength {LFRT and HFRT: bench press = 5.6 kg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9-9.4) and 9.7 kg (95% CI: 4.6-14.9) and squat = 8.0 kg (95% CI: 2.7-13.2) and 12.0 kg (95% CI: 5.1-18.1), respectively} and lean tissue mass (p = 0.007) (LFRT and HFRT: total body lean mass = 0.5 kg [95% CI: 0.0-1.1] and 0.8 kg [95% CI: 0.0-1.6], respectively) with no difference between groups (bench press, p = 0.168; squat, p = 0.312, and total body lean mass, p = 0.619). Thus, HFRT and LFRT are similar overload strategies for promoting muscular adaptation in well-trained subjects when the sets and intensity are equated per week.
高频率阻力训练与低频率阻力训练在增加肌肉质量和力量方面对训练有素的男性同样有效。J Strength Cond Res 33(7S): S130-S139, 2019-我们研究了两种不同的每周频率阻力训练(RT)方案在 8 周内对肌肉力量和肌肉肥大的影响在训练有素的男性中。23 名受试者(年龄:26.2±4.2 岁;RT 经验:6.9±3.1 年)被随机分配到两组:低频率阻力训练(LFRT,n=12)或高频率阻力训练(HFRT,n=11)。LFRT 采用分体式训练,每周一次训练每个特定的肌肉群。HFRT 采用全身训练,每次训练所有肌肉群。两组每周进行相同次数的训练(10-15 组)和练习(1-2 个练习),每组 8-12 次最大重复(70-80%的 1 次最大重复[1RM]),每周 5 次。肌肉力量(卧推和深蹲 1RM)和瘦组织质量(双能 X 射线吸收法)在研究前后进行评估。结果表明,两组均有改善(p<0.001)肌肉力量{LFRT 和 HFRT:卧推=5.6 公斤(95%置信区间[CI]:1.9-9.4)和 9.7 公斤(95%CI:4.6-14.9)和深蹲=8.0 公斤(95%CI:2.7-13.2)和 12.0 公斤(95%CI:5.1-18.1)}和瘦组织质量(p=0.007)(LFRT 和 HFRT:全身瘦组织质量=0.5 公斤[95%CI:0.0-1.1]和 0.8 公斤[95%CI:0.0-1.6]),两组之间无差异(卧推,p=0.168;深蹲,p=0.312,全身瘦组织质量,p=0.619)。因此,当每周的组数和强度相等时,HFRT 和 LFRT 是促进训练有素的受试者肌肉适应的相似的超负荷策略。